Welcome, Guest. Please Login
YaBB - Yet another Bulletin Board
  Welcome to our forum.
  HomeHelpSearchLogin  
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Send Topic Print
PEER REVIEWED AlanCFAs idea of evidence for evolution (Read 39206 times)
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
PEER REVIEWED AlanCFAs idea of evidence for evolution
Jan 11th, 2011 at 4:04pm
 
Next in AlanAFC’s line of “absolute” evidence we have the fossil record as he put it:

“the fossil record with transitional forms”


When I was very young, my father, God bless him, taught me to never believe anyone. That all people are full of agendas and that I should find out what is true and what “works” for myself. 

It is funny but that is what the greatest people of all time teach, but for some human reason people are like sheep and lemmings and need to believe and follow other ignorant humans and their ridiculous beliefs.  I am finding that beliefs are a form of delusion to protect oneself from the reality of the situation.

I was introduced to this idea of fossils showing evolution back in high school at 14 years old, and I started to study this “very interesting idea” for myself.   It didn't take long to realize that these flawed emotional humans, who called themselves "professors" were projecting belief on fossils, because there was no tie between any of the fossils and the standards for my acceptance were not met. (There was also very little if any DNA evidence as DNA was just discovered in the late 50's)

My standards for scientific acceptance are absolutely irrefutable evidence that this is real, requires no indoctrination into a belief system.  Since they could not produce this evidence, and all they had were slogans of belief, I realized quickly these were weak minded humans who were only on a quest to show their religious belief in this pseudo science.

The things that really turned me off were the cartoons of these ape men that were obviously fabricated only from the minds of the believers.  I still remember looking at these fossil photos in the “science books” and then looking at the cartoon depiction of these creatures as “they must have looked”.   The cartoons didn't match the fossils, that were distorted and had no indication of tissue at all.

There was and still is absolutely no way for them to recreate these “millions of year old” creatures by any human knowledge of them.  The skin hair, muscles, tendons, lips, eyes, ears are simply not existent on fossils.  Yet these believers would place those body parts on these distorted fossils and they would “straighten out the fossils”.   You would have to have “fallen off a turnip truck” to believe this religious nonsense. 

I put this “crap” aside and proceeded to get degrees and knowledge in real science. Science that never fails to offer evidence for the theory and that only points to the theory.   I learned that when ALL OF THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO THE THEORY AND ONLY TO THE THEORY WITH NO OTHER PLAUSIBILITY, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A SCIENCE THAT FUNCTIONS. This is what I call “functional science”.

I studied physics, math, electronics; these are functional sciences as you can tell by the computer you are using today.  I can design a circuit board and send it to China and it will work the same if it was made in the US  or any country. To be quite simple you know it is science,   because it is a functional scientific theory one that works and it is required to show everyone that it works, not just the religious believers who are indoctrinated.

We can see that The theory of Evolution is a non functional science, because it has never produced as single useful idea in medicine, biology, nor in understanding life.  It has never produced any good for mankind.  It is not testable, and therefore is not science.

You cannot test something that  has no evidence of being true.

You can look at all the evidence and determine what is obvious if you have no prejudices from some ideology or religion.

The fossil record is obviously and clearly not depicting any form of evolution towards greater complexity, that fits any part of the theory that simple life has magically evolved into complex life. Fossils are so full of contradiction that they invalidate themselves.  There is absolutely no credibility in fossil evidence showing evolution of simple life towards complex. The opposite is only shown in DNA and in the creatures we have living today where we can test DNA.

The first thing for any scientist, real scientist to do is to define what constitutes evidence for “transitional fossils”.   If you let someone else define what evidence is, you are just allowing them to brainwash you into their "religious" ideas, even if they are the town expert and have multiple PhD's.

If creatures “evolve” towards a new life form, like a one celled creature that evolves into a multi cell creature with arms, legs, feet, eyes, brain, like a human being, then you would see evidence of this in the physical world today.

There is none.

I have looked at all the evidence and there are no transitional fossils on this planet, indicating a slow transition of features in a direction towards more complexity more fitness or more intelligence.  Only if you are a believer in this idea do any of these fossils look like they may be a transition.  REPEAT: it is only if you  are already a believer that any of these fossils seem like transitional.

And these people are so adamant that fossils are so "clear" to them.  Use your brain and see if you see any clarity in them.

If you define transitional as having slight steps in the direction towards the more complex creature you can then think it is the transition.   That means that there would be at least ONE set of  complete fossils out of 250,000,000 that would show gradual steps of the formation of features towards and only towards more complex and morphological changes. 

We only see completely formed creatures with full arms legs, fins, spine, heads, etc. Then we only see creatures degrading in features.  It looks like complete body parts or gene to cell replication function has been shut off.   There are no partially developed “anything’s”. There are no body parts that show any transitions. AND all of the evidence points only to degradation of existing creatures.  All we see is the ancestors were much stronger than the de-evolved species from any genetic lineage.

What I have discovered is that in the hundreds of people whom I have asked about this, they all think that a completely finished creature is somehow a transition.  The only way this can be “real” to them is by indoctrination and wanting to believe in this.  Meaning, they are not guarding their intelligence against these false authorities, who are just believers in this religious mythology of evolution.

Also, you will see them try to tie in obvious facts and using nothing but inference use these separated, and purposely separated, facts as evidence for evolution.  You never see them take each piece of evidence and compare them to each and every other piece of evidence, because they are not capable of doing that.  DNA shows no form of "evolution" because it only show absolutely clear and irrefutable evidence of reduction in fitness over time.

When you compare all the evidence to a premise, it better fit with the premise, that with each piece you will see that the evidence tells us a totally different story than some magical process that magically improves creatures from a simple life form to a complex life form.  This has never happened.

When the only evidence is wishful thinking projected on fossils, with absolutely no way to verify any of it, that is not science.  When all the evidence and I mean all of it is simply the "opinions of believers", and they can't show us any verifiable "concrete" physical evidence to back it then, I call it the mythological religion of Evodelusionism.



If you still don't understand, instead of just laying down for this faith based belief, ask questions.  These people teaching this stuff are not scientists, no matter what they think they are; They are not.  In my opinion they are the paid priests of this pseudo religion. If you get paid to teach this crap to people, you  need to find something ethical to do with your life.

I am sorry but when I come across a old time professor of this nonsense who woke up one day and realized it was all nonsense, that in his entire life dedicated to science and teaching this he has not see any evidence that was conclusive of any "improvements" increases, new genes, etc.
It is a little late, to go back and take back all the nonsense he taught to those young people.   The emotional regrets are horrible and haunt you until you die.  So you better know what you are doing when you teach others.

New genes are required for evolution and new cells with new functions having beneficial results.  There's none of that shown.
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: AlanCFAs idea of evidence for evolution
Reply #1 - Jan 31st, 2011 at 9:03pm
 
AlanCFA next “proof” of evolution

“anatomical and molecular vestiges”

This is just about the easiest to refute as evidence for any form of “evolution”.

This is the part of evolution that is nonsense "Evolution:  "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character." Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language. "

In order to show evolution, you  must show progress towards useful features that are developing, not useless features that are not used because of atrophy.

Atrophy is evidence against evolution and absolutely clear evidence towards atrophy and anti-evolution.

If a feature was there and now it is gone is a sign that creatures were more advanced with more physiological features used for survival that are now not used any more.

In order to show “evolution” or progress towards the more advanced or more complex you  need to show features which are developing.
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: AlanCFAs idea of evidence for evolution "atavisms"
Reply #2 - Jan 31st, 2011 at 9:09pm
 
"atavisms"

The meaning of atavism is “anatomical and molecular vestiges”.  So for someone to imply that these are separate "things" in their "long list of reasons" is stupid. I mean really pathetic and shows they need this for emotional reasons.

This is easy to refute.  Any feature that reoccurs from the past is not new. If an Atavism is triggered it is still not new.

In order to show any form of evolution, you  must show NEW features that made themselves from coding that has never existed.

This is more "proof" of anti-evolution or degeneration as is shown in all DNA evidence.
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: AlanCFAs idea of evidence for evolution "ontongeny"
Reply #3 - Jan 31st, 2011 at 9:13pm
 
"ontongeny"
Here are the various meanings of this word from science:

"the development of defects in an embryo"
"the failure to develop some part or organ"
"the process of growth in plants"
"the science that studies living organisms"


Again this only talks about existing traits developing within the live creatures.  In order to show evolution you must show only NEW traits developing that have never been seen in any of the species ever at any time in history.

Clear?
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: AlanCFAs idea of evidence for evolution "anatomical and molecular parahomology"
Reply #4 - Jan 31st, 2011 at 9:26pm
 
"anatomical and molecular parahomology"

In DNA this is the idea that any showing of similar DNA automatically is evidence for genetic linking from the original parent of all species the great granddaddy of all life.  This part of this science is full of inferences.

For instance there is a tiny and  I mean tiny segment of DNA found in one species of fish that is similar to humans. So this is automatically believed as evidence that we evolved from fish. 

There are only 20 amino acids to make life cells with.  The odds of the design showing redundant use of the same type of cells to make "muscles" for instance, is about 100% with NO genetic connection at all.  Muscles require a cell that contracts in response to impulses from nerves.  There isn't many ways to make that.

This does not warrant any further discussion at all.  It is ridiculous crap "pseudo science" and a stretch of the imagination.

It goes along with the idea that fools think that any similarity of use, appearance can only mean a direct genetic linage link.

This is utterly ridiculous and in fact all that I have seen of this idea in fossils of the "ancient version" of the creature are shown to have far more usable features and the "homology" becomes more complex as you go back in time.

It is evidence of anti-evolution or the continual degradation  of all species. 

Here is a photo of the ancient saber tooth tiger the "determined" parent of the cat species, by "homology".  It looks like a cat but it is far more powerful, far more able to survive and has many more features that modern cats, lions, tigers, leopards, panthers and all the cats. All of the "cats" devolved from this amazingly far more complex life form.

...
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: AlanCFAs idea of evidence for evolution "anatomical and molecular convergence"
Reply #5 - Jan 31st, 2011 at 9:38pm
 
"anatomical and molecular convergence"


When a creature has anti-evolution and is degrading in its complex functions as is shown in ALL the evidence you will see what I call genetic and physical splits.  This happens when the creatures do what is known as "speciation". They split off from the original family of the parent of the genetic lineage.

You have to go backwards with this in time to realize that the parent of all speciation splits was much stronger, more complex and far more advanced in terms of survival and genetic features for survival.  The horse is another example.

You will notice that the oldest of the "horse" as it is believed to be from paleontology and what they think is the ancient horse, that this creature has far more complex bone structure in its legs. As it goes along to the "modern" horse it has lost many bones and flexibility in the legs. This has cause the horse to be more limited, rather than more complex.

Even the ancient teeth look better.
Back to top
 

Horseevolution__1_.png (357 KB | 360 )
Horseevolution__1_.png

"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: AlanCFAs idea of evidence for evolution "suboptimal function"
Reply #6 - Jan 31st, 2011 at 9:51pm
 
"sub-optimal function"

NOTE: This one is so damned funny that I had to quote the site that all the Evotards use for this.  In the first paragraph they clearly define "anti-evolution" or loss of good genetic engineering as the creatures "degrade" from the more "optimal" to the "sub-optimal".

This is the MOST compelling evidence for anti-evolution or gradual degrading of the best genetic engineering to the more defective genetic engineering we see today that I have ever seen and that we can see today. The famous "The Left Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve" is totally evidence for genetic degradation.  See the video below. These people are "nuts" by the way in not being able to see the obvious, because they are brainwashed into seeing things BACKWARDS. 

=========================================

From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html
Evolutionary opportunism also results in suboptimal functions and structures. As stated before, in gradually evolving a new function, organisms must make do with what they already have. Thus, functions are likely to be performed by structures that would have been arranged differently (e.g. more efficiently) if the final function were known from the outset. "Suboptimality" does not mean that a structure functions poorly. It simply means that a structure with a more efficient design (usually with less superfluous complexity), could perform the same final function equally well. Suboptimal structures and functions should have a gradualistic, historical evolutionary explanation, based on the opportunistic recruitment of ancestral structures, if this history is known from other evidence (e.g. if this history is phylogenetically determined by closely related organisms or fossil history)."






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: AlanCFAs idea of evidence for evolution "protein functional redundancy"
Reply #7 - Jan 31st, 2011 at 10:30pm
 
"protein functional redundancy"

There are only a very few amino acids available to make living tissue from, so OF COURSE it will be used in different creatures to make similar body parts.  And this is also a repeat or another of the same nonsense I covered already.
It seems that repeating the same concepts using different wording somehow adds more "evidence".  It is the same evidence and the same answer.

Look at the chart and tell me how many amino acids do you see?
We live on a tiny finite little planet with fixed resources.
We do not have infinite resources to build body tissue from.



[I had to remove my sarcasm, because this is utter nonsense]  There is no possible evolution of any simple life that goes from simpler to more complex because just the opposite is truth.  All life forms started out stronger, more complex and more able to survive, with less genetic diseases and far better genetic engineering.

And this idea that fish share proteins with humans in the DNA is supposed to prove that humans evolved from fish.
This is such a stretch of the imagination that it makes me laugh how stupid people can be.
Check this out. They think that a tiny section of DNA that is close to human in fish is proof of fish evolving into humans:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2720184/pdf/1404.pdf/?tool=pmcentrez

========================================

In order to show there is similarity in genetics to tie creatures together, you need one huge amount of data.  This is obvious in the Chimp and Human DNA comparison.


Here is more evidence that Chimps are genetic reduction from the Ancestor Human Genome, which was far more fit than now.

Ancient, more complex, more intelligent, and way more healthy,  Humans ( a far more superior and intelligent human species) are the more complex common ancestor to both modern humans and chimps and primates.  It is exactly, again, the opposite of the belief.

In all the evidence we have in biology DNA Genetics there is only a reduction of gene functions and a total gradual degradation of the original "excellent genetic engineering".

Realizing that chimps are the ancestor of a far more complex and far better made human that has degraded is simple to see in this supposed proof of "evolution".
Chimps have never flourished are relatively young species very little evidence of them in the ground and they are now going extinct.  Chimpanzees have less than 600 left in the wild and the rest are in sanctuaries or being used in horrible labs like this;



" Importantly, Hubert Yockey has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 1093 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences, based on these genetic mutational analyses (Hampsey et al. 1986; Hampsey et al. 1988; Yockey 1992, Ch. 6, p. 254). For perspective, the number 1093 is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Thus, functional cytochrome c sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no a priori reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, cytochrome c protein sequences.

In terms of a scientific statistical analysis, the "null hypothesis" is that the identity of non-essential amino acids in the cytochrome c proteins from human and chimpanzee should be random with respect to one another. However, from the theory of common descent and our standard phylogenetic tree we know that humans and chimpanzees are quite closely related. We therefore predict, in spite of the odds, that human and chimpanzee cytochrome c sequences should be much more similar than, say, human and yeast cytochrome c - simply due to inheritance.

Confirmation:

Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. The "null hypothesis" given above is false. In the absence of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than 10-93 (1 out of 1093). Thus, the high degree of similarity in these proteins is a spectacular corroboration of the theory of common descent. Furthermore, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals. The chance of this occurring in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less than 10-29. The yeast Candida krusei is one of the most distantly related eukaryotic organisms from humans. Candida has 51 amino acid differences from the human sequence. A conservative estimate of this probability is less than 10-25."

From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

What this means is mathmatically it is impossible for chimps and humans to not be related by genetics.  That cannot be refuted and it follows exactly what the DNA evidence shows towards Anti-Evolution, or de-evolution.  There is no sign shown in DNA that any creature has gained any new features but has only lost features and has more defects. PERIOD.

Chimps are from the same "super human species" as modern humans and both have de-evolved along separated lines.
I think that Chimps lived in a rapid genetic degradation zone of the planet with more toxins and much more natural radioactive isotopes.
When you examine the DNA of Chimps and humans  you see clearly the remnants of humanness in chimp DNA and you can see the losses in brain capacity, and the abilty to speak and very limited reasoning abilty.

If anything Chimps are a message from the "Genetic Engineer" of what will happen if you don't follow the instruction manual for genetic preservation and holding on to what good is left in human intelligence.



I think that the pagan religion of Evodelusionism is evidence of human de-evolution.  Nobody with any intelligence can actually think there is such scientific garbage as random causes and genetic information causing genetic engineered structures that magically appear by accidents.

When a person drives a car into that pole and smashed the front-end of their car, did it improve the car?  If you  keep smashing it (deleterious mutations) eventually "it will turn into a truck", by this logic. 

How did you allow this sort of logic?  How can anybody be that stupid.  If you understand anything about science and engineering , you will realize quickly how illogical this whole religious ideology (Evodelusionism)  belief system is. 

============================================
HOW MANY AMINO ACIDS ARE THERE IN THIS CHART?
It is a very small number and so it is recycled throughout all organic life.

...

...
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: AlanCFAs idea of evidence for evolution The Gecko
Reply #8 - Feb 1st, 2011 at 1:18am
 
"The gecko looks exactly like its modern-day relatives although researchers at the Oregon State University estimated its age at 100 million years. The gecko, which was found in Burma (Myanmar), is said to be 40 million years older than the oldest known gecko fossil. It was thought to have lived in the lower Cretaceous before the heyday of Tyrannosaurus rex."


The Gecko has amazing genetic engineering and is the predecessor of snakes.  It has feet that can walk on glass upside down.  It is far more genetically advance than most any of the reptiles.  It is also much older and is a prime example of genetics and that all the spin offs with gecko genes are degraded from them.
Snakes show loss of legs. The do not show any idea that they are "developing" legs. That does not follow any evidence nor any DNA evidence.



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: AlanCFAs idea of evidence for evolution
Reply #9 - Feb 11th, 2011 at 12:57pm
 
It is absolutely clear in evidence that there is no "correcting" or "fixing" enfluence in any creature. They are all losing gene fucntions and are less complex because of this.

70% of the thing this "science" calls "mutation" results in damage to the genome.  Considering that this is happing all the time. Then just by this statistic alone negates the possibility of any general NET increase in fitness of any creature.

Because these scientists are not looking for the cause of any form of "positive" gene expression they cannot say where these very few positive expressions come from.  They pull out the "magic" card out of their ass and say they are "random mutations".  It is highly unlikely that any positive results come from any accidental gene change that would fit with the completed genetic structure of any human.

The loss of gene function is de-evolutoin or anti-evolutoin. Any "positive" gene improvement was most likely already in the human population.  In order to say without any doubts where these come from, they would have to do the work to check the DNA of many generations backwards from the specimen sample DNA thought to have "improved" DNA.

"Loss of the CBX7 gene expression correlates with a highly malignant phenotype in thyroid cancer."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18701502
==========
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Loss%20of%20gene%20function

I was going to post every gene loss that represents de-evolution, but there are over 80,000 articles on this. on the government web site.

The point is there is no evolution, there is only a continual degradation of the human genome and all genomes.

There is no magical process that "fixes" or "improves" gene functions.  The only thing that will fix it is "intelligence" that steps in to fix these imperfections.  It took genetic engineering to produce all the life on earth, and it takes genetic engineering to fix it. 

Only a brainwashed person who is using archaic, Evodelusional, ideas of evolution could not see this.

When you read articles realizing that there are no new gene expressions bringing any improvements by magical "evolution" process that have never been documented, we can start to get free from delusional archaic concepts that retard science.

http://www.cell.com/abstract/S0092-8674(05)00541-6


http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v23/n13/full/1207395a.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/87/19/7762.full.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2228234/pdf/brjcancer00186-0067.pdf

http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/9/3/1013.full

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6PJN-51K90TG-8&_user=1...

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/87/3/1262

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20093486

http://www.jbc.org/content/284/20/13348.full


Honest Geneticists:  Nothing in common on eye development.
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/14/8/1555.full

http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/ajpa/article/S0002-9440(10)60...

http://www.genetic-future.com/2008/03/why-do-genome-wide-scans-fail.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T36-3YS2BGN-48&_user=...

Type 1 Diabetes is an auto immune disease in people with powerful immune systems that destroy the islets. 
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/53/9/2281.full

http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Genomics-and-Genetics-Weekly/2004-05-28/052820...

http://erc.endocrinology-journals.org/cgi/content/short/17/2/383

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cystic_fibrosis

http://science.jrank.org/pages/2949/Gene-Mutation.html

http://www.ajcn.org/content/88/1/125.full.pdf

http://www.wistar.org/Herlyn/Pub%20PDFs/McArdle2005.pdf

Excellent basic article on "mutation".
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/M/Mutations.html

http://www.springerlink.com/content/p654p087275377n3/

Interesting article on Gene expression.
http://employees.csbsju.edu/hjakubowski/classes/ch331/bind/olbindtransciption.ht...

http://www.chd.ucsd.edu/seminar/documents/Varki.2008.NRG.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3333352?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEnt...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1377697/pdf/9915938.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders

http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/18/6184.full.pdf+html
Look at the DNA charts on the primates, all of them are younger and have diminished human genomes.  There is noi way for humans to evolve from a species that is at least 500,000 years younger by the radiometric dating methods.
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: AlanCFAs idea of evidence for evolution
Reply #10 - Feb 12th, 2011 at 11:36am
 
http://anthropology.net/2008/03/20/a-multivariate-analysis-of-orrorin-tugenensis...

We also have a recent finding of MODERN humans in Israel from 400 to 500 thousand years ago. This fact destroys the idea that we "evolved" from Africa only. The so called MODERN human before that were dated at just under 200 thousand years in Africa. 

Darwin based his justification for his cultural brainwashing that English people were evolved and that blacks were low and poor evolved, like animals, left over from Africa.
Darwin was an idiot, like all Evotards.
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: AlanCFAs idea of evidence for evolution
Reply #11 - Feb 14th, 2011 at 12:20am
 
http://www.accessscience.com/IOW/iow.aspx?iowID=16

http://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/990/darwin-was-wrong-about-the-wild-origi...

DNA shows this was the speciated cousin from the  predecessor of the chicken.
 

It is far more able to survive in the wild than its later versions.
Another "notch in the handle" on killing evolution as any idea of reality.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000010

...
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: AlanCFAs idea of evidence for evolution
Reply #12 - Feb 14th, 2011 at 10:38pm
 
@Draugh39 "mean that we branched off from them!!" Or they branched off from US, is what follows the evidence. And as time goes on we gathered more. It is pure logic, and is objective logic, not based on any faith or ideas of "evolution". I don't believe in anything that people teach, I find the truth for myself.

GoodScienceForYou 20 seconds ago
@Draugh39 By the way, I just cut and pasted the top of the article for you to google much easier. If you put it in the google box that way you can't miss it. Don' t be a jerk. I was impressed with you until your denial methods of what is obvious. I know it goes against your faith and belief, but it IS what is in the evidence. There is never any NET increase in complexity any any genetic lineage as it goes through time. This is shown in DNA.

GoodScienceForYou 3 minutes ago
@Draugh39 Having more insertion points at this time means that we have gained in retro virus, because of our life styles. We are exposed to many more virus infections. You are angry, because you are not ready to get clear of these ideologies of your belief. What you do is based on faith and is not following the real evidence.

Chimps are much younger than humans and there is way to much genetically close for anything else. The others are not much of an issue and they are also all younger.

GoodScienceForYou 7 minutes ago
@GoodScienceForYou

You don't even understand what you read!? The ERV shows that we have more insertion points than the apes of these specific types retro viruses. The ERV can't simply disappear which mean that we branched off from them!!! Boy for a person that claims to have an IQ of 180 you do show an utter lack of understanding.

By the way a reference is written as follows: Author, Journal name, year of publication, pages. You don't put the address

Draugh39 12 minutes ago
@Draugh39 It only works ONE WAY. There's no evidence of any increase in gene function. There are only significant diminished gene expressions shown in DNA. There are over 2000 known genetic illnesses in the human genome. They don't magically fix themselves by any mystical causes. They are permanent and can only be removed by genetic engineering. This is OBVIOUS. and if you can't see it, your education is in the way.

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."A Einstein

GoodScienceForYou 29 minutes ago
WOW! You believe this? This is what you are admitting too?

Don't end your search here folks. Keep an open mind and explore all things. Then come to a conclusion becuase this is straight bovine. You are worth sooo much more than this crud.

God bless

highwaysandbyways 30 minutes ago
characters remaining OK Cancel or  Post
@Draugh39 The old world monkey have fusions of the human genomes chromosomes and have 2 million less base pairs. They also carry the ERV markers. This shows a direct genetic lineage from humans as their common ancestor. They are much younger than humans.

How is it possible for humans and chimps to have a magical common ancestor when they are so close genetically and the chimp is way younger as a species on this earth. Chimps are obviously the result of a diminished human genome.

GoodScienceForYou 37 minutes ago
@Draugh39 Accurate and efficient reconstruction of deep phylogenies from structured RNAs Roman R. Stocsits 1, *, Harald Letsch 1 , Jana Hertel 2, *, Bernhard Misof 3 and Peter F. Stadler 2,4,5,6, Look closely at the DNA ties to the primates, realizing that all of them are much younger than humans an all have diminished human genomes.
GoodScienceForYou 48 minutes ago
@Draugh39 I am tired of being told to believe in science by people who don't even use the scientific methods.

I have been a scientists all of my adult life, and I would never get a degree in some ideology that has no evidence to back it. There is no magical processes, nor mystical causes in genetics. There is no magic "random mutations" because random violates the first rule of science, CAUSE and RESULT or Cause and Effect. There is no magic that fixes genomes. PERIOD.

GoodScienceForYou 1 hour ago
@Draugh39 If you want to indoctrinate into an ideology, the best place is in the classroom. If you want to control the indoctrination change the definitions to match the belief. They realized that evolution is not towards any form of increased complexity, so they use the definition of genetics to replace it with. However the foundation of this etymology means towards the more complex. Computers evolve, humans don't


@Draugh39 I am tired of being told to believe in science by people who don't even use the scientific methods.

I have been a scientists all of my adult life, and I would never get a degree in some ideology that has no evidence to back it. There is no magical processes, nor mystical causes in genetics. There is no magic "random mutations" because random violates the first rule of science, CAUSE and RESULT or Cause and Effect. There is no magic that fixes genomes. PERIOD.

GoodScienceForYou 1 hour ago
@Draugh39 If you want to indoctrinate into an ideology, the best place is in the classroom. If you want to control the indoctrination change the definitions to match the belief. They realized that evolution is not towards any form of increased complexity, so they use the definition of genetics to replace it with. However the foundation of this etymology means towards the more complex. Computers evolve, humans don't

GoodScienceForYou 1 hour ago
SPEAK FOR YOURSELF!!!!

StLukey7 2 hours ago
@Draugh39 third part on the chicken; 4 Hendrix Genetics, Breeding Research & Technology Centre, Boxmeer, The Netherlands, 5 Istituto Nazionale per la Fauna Selvatica, Laboratorio di Genetica, Ozzano Emilia, Italy, 6 IFM Biology, Linköping University, SE-58183 Linköping, Sweden

GoodScienceForYou 2 hours ago
@Draugh39 second part on the chicken: 1 Department of Medical Biochemistry and Microbiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, 2 INRA, AgroParisTech, UMR1236 Génétique et Diversité Animales, Jouy-en-Josas, France, 3 Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden,

GoodScienceForYou 2 hours ago
@Draugh39 Identification of the Yellow Skin Gene Reveals a Hybrid Origin of the Domestic Chicken. Jonas Eriksson1, Greger Larson1, Ulrika Gunnarsson1, Bertrand Bed'hom2, Michele Tixier-Boichard2, Lina Strömstedt3, Dominic Wright1, Annemieke Jungerius4, Addie Vereijken4, Ettore Randi5, Per Jensen6, Leif Andersson1,3*

GoodScienceForYou 2 hours ago
@Draugh39 You can go and get the rest. And read my explanations for my conclusions.

GoodScienceForYou 2 hours ago
@Draugh39 I just gave you two. I have the one on the laryngeal nerve as well. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Part 3:

Opportunism and Evolutionary Constraint

Copyright © 1999-2004 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.

GoodScienceForYou 2 hours ago
@Draugh39 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Part 4:

The Molecular Sequence Evidence

Copyright © 1999-2004 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.

GoodScienceForYou 2 hours ago
@Draugh39 remainder of heading: 2

The University of Queensland, Institute for Molecular Bioscience and Australian Zebrafish Phenomics Facility, Brisbane, QLD

4072, Australia

GoodScienceForYou 2 hours ago
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: AlanCFAs idea of evidence for evolution
Reply #13 - Feb 14th, 2011 at 10:38pm
 
@ScientificBob 2. a afaransis, a africanus, homo erectus, homo habilis, homo ergaster, homo neanderthal,... how many do you want? These are not enough for evidence. The common belief is that homo Erectus is the missing link from 1.8 to 1.3 million years ago, but the oldest upright hominid is 6.1 million years old.

Neanderthal DNA shows Chimp and Human DNA and That humans mated with Neanderthals. Read up on this. The more we know the more Evodelusionism is gone.

GoodScienceForYou 9 hours ago
@GoodScienceForYou 1. the question was about transitional, not "missing links"

2. if a new fossil is found of say a "transitional" state after homo erectus, guys like you will begin yapping about the "missing link" between homo erectus and that newfly found fossil

3. fossilisation is rare

4. even without a single fossil, evolution is more then proven in genetics.

5. "missing links" deal with evolutionary HISTORY, not with evolutionary biology.

So your point invalid.

ScientificBob 9 hours ago
@ScientificBob Guys like you use faith and belief to fill in the blanks. I use evidence and the DNA is fantastic evidence for only DE-EVOLUTION.. All creatures are losing gene functions and we can easily see this in the DNA. Fossilization is not rare. We have samples of over 200 million fossils from most creatures that have ever lived. WE have 88% of the non bird, NOW LIVING, vertebrates as fossils and the original looks more fit than we have now. Go look! You cannot use faith and belief!!

GoodScienceForYou 7 hours ago
@ScientificBob 1 of 2 What I recommend is to get away from the indoctrination and find out what is going on. We have all the evidence we need now to point in the opposite direction to "evolution". It is an archaic idea in science, just like "the world is flat".

GoodScienceForYou 7 hours ago
2 of 2 Evolution: "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character." Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.

There is NO evidence of this in modern biology, genetics, nor in the fossil record. It is exactly the opposite.

GoodScienceForYou 7 hours ago
@GoodScienceForYou

You are *deliberately* using the wrong Webster definition as a straw-man.(And OED is a better reference anyway)

"Evolution - a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory." (Webster latest eddition)

You truly are a dishonest person.

Draugh39 5 hours ago
@Draugh39 If you are protecting a belief, and indoctrinating people into an ideology, you control the definitions to fit the belief. Pseudo scientists believe in their mind that they are correct and as you know people do a lot of damage in the name of their "good" beliefs not based on anything. When people change already established words to mean what a belief has, then it is a religion. The Etymology of Evolution is only one way towards more complex. Computers evolve. humans don't.

GoodScienceForYou 5 hours ago
@GoodScienceForYou

The theory of evolution is well defined by science. If someone then use a different definition and then claims that it is a definition for the theory of evolution, then that person is either criminally ignorent or a liar. I also suggest that you look up what the word "religion" mean, I suggest you use OED.

According to the theory of evolution, humans (and any other living thing) are constantly evolving. Speciation has been observed soevolution is both a theory and a fact.

Draugh39 3 hours ago
@Draugh39 This idea that creature evolve is the crime. There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence than can't be refuted by other more effective plausibilities that actually fit the evidence. It really is a mythological religious ideology. Anyone who falls for this is called an Evotard, because they will not look at the evidence and only the evidence before making any conclusions. The conclusions only fit the religious belief, but they are false conclusions. Don't be an Evotard! Start looking!

GoodScienceForYou 3 hours ago
@GoodScienceForYou

What a load of cobblers! But let's test you shall we.

What other explainations exist for the evolution of Flavobacterium, Sp. K172 that allows it to consume nylon? What other explainations exists for the evolution of the London Underground mosquito?

You claim they exist now present them.

Draugh39 3 hours ago
@Draugh39 1 - 2 Bacteria is never to be compared with other species. It has its own set of programming to survive no matter what. And it has de-evolved from the archaic species we still see on earth. Bacteria will adapt to eat any digestible form of carbon based matter. They have bacteria that can digest crude oil now. It is ridiculous to use the "synthetic" argument, because there is no synthetic carbon on earth. Like I said I am way ahead of you on this.

GoodScienceForYou 3 hours ago
@GoodScienceForYou

"Bacteria is never to be compared with other species."

Really, why not - it has DNA and reproduce so it agrees with evolution like all other species on the planet.

"Bacteria will adapt to eat any digestible form of carbon based matter."

LOL. you utterly miss the point. Nylon wasn't digestable until after that species evolved.

And as for synthetic. I hardly think you understand what that is. difference between synthetic copper and native?

Draugh39 3 hours ago
@Draugh39 What you call evolved is not. Bacteria has always remained as bacteria. We have living species of ancient bacteria and it was and still is bacteria. The ability of bacteria to adapt has nothing to do with any other species. It has its own set of rules. When you project belief on bacteria and try to project its ability to adapt better than any other creature you are not being honest. It is not your fault that you believe this. It is cultural brainwashing just like any ideology.

GoodScienceForYou 3 hours ago
@Draugh39 London Underground mosquito? The mosquito is a horrible argument because it has been documented at 125,000,000 years and identical in morphology. It is well known in genetics that separation from the group will lead to in ability to breed with the old group. This is not evolution ,but separation and continued de-evolution. Evolustionists will look at a turd on the ground and say it "suggests" evolution. Humans could never breed with even 10 generations back who were still human.

GoodScienceForYou 3 hours ago
@GoodScienceForYou

The London underground mosquito can't interbreed with the parent species. It is thus a new species which have adapted to an environment where the old species couldn't live. It is thus better than the old species in this environment. what you state is bollocks

Draugh39 3 hours ago
@Draugh39 Do you know and is it really any better or stronger? NO! It just adapted to the new environment. Goto GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum and read the posting there. Many Evolutionists have been there and some PHD's in genetics who failed to present any foundational evidence for evolution. I only go with the original definition of evolution and not the nonsense one used today.

GoodScienceForYou 3 hours ago
@Draugh39 1 of 2 In all cases there is only a de-evolving, loss of gene expression, and general degradation from fitness for survival. This is why humans are quickly heading for exitnction. If you want to stop this trend of the human genome degrading so rapidly, then you need to stop believing in magical "fixes" that do not appear. The net of genetics is traits are reduced, strength is less, intelligence is less, and much more genetic diseases.

GoodScienceForYou 3 hours ago
@Draugh39 2 of 2 Chimps, Gorillas, orangutan' almost extinct, because of lack of fitness. They simply don't have the genetics to survive with the degraded functions needed to live. They are food, sort of a cannibalistic thing. Chimps, Gorillas, orangutans, macaques all devolved from humans. Their fossil evidence or lack of shows they are much younger in terms of time on earth than humans. The DNA backs this up precisely.

GoodScienceForYou 3 hours ago
@GoodScienceForYou

"The DNA backs this up precisely."

I'm tired of unsupported CGSM from you. Give the reference to the scientific study that shows this. Or admit that you lied.

Draugh39 3 hours ago
@Draugh39 Go look up human, chimp, gorilla, orangutan. All of it. DNA chromosomes fusions, and fossil record on all of them. The oldest upright human is documented at 6.1 million years. When this femur was found it upset Evolutionists so much that they denied it, but they can't the fellow who discovered this has the evidence. And we have modern humans now at 500,000 to 400,000 years found in Israel recently. How many fossils are there on the great primates? Go look. It is easy to find.

GoodScienceForYou 3 hours ago
@GoodScienceForYou

I asked you for a reference. You claim as fact that "Chimps, Gorillas, orangutans, macaques all devolved from humans" and that "The DNA backs this up precisely."

Now give the reference to this study or admit that you lied.

Draugh39 3 hours ago
@Draugh39 The references are all on the GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum for you to read.

I keep adding more each day as I find them. They come from all the evidence that you use. There is no such thing as Evolution: "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character."

GoodScienceForYou 3 hours ago
@GoodScienceForYou

What part of "scientific study" did you have problems with? Again give the reference to the study that back up your claim or admit that you lied.

Draugh39 3 hours ago
@Draugh39 I know it is hard to take, but it is from your scientists papers. I have read over 21,000 of them and found the ones on the chimp to be fascinating and OBVIOUS. It is not the end of the world to realize that you were taught wrong. It can only help to make you a better scientist. Beleifs are crap, When people project beliefs on evidence they screw it all up and distort it, hide facts from themselves.

GoodScienceForYou 3 hours ago
@GoodScienceForYou

I'm a scientist and an active researcher with about 60 publications to my name and have access to the worlds peer reviewed journals and quite a few more. So give the reference to the article you claim support this or admit that you lied.

What journal, what author, what year and page number.

Draugh39 3 hours ago
@Draugh39 It is very difficult to past links to articles here. You know that, it is much better for you to go to the GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum and look! It is safe there. I make sure of that. I have a tested IQ of 180 and a photographic memory. I read thousands of articles and probably have read yours. I am able to put together data and put all the evidence to show what is really happening. Take a breath and relax. This is an adventure for you to break free of ideology.

GoodScienceForYou 2 hours ago
@GoodScienceForYou

I didn't ask for a link.

I asked for the name of the journal, the name of the authors, the year of publication and the page numbers. This is the standard way any reference is given and as I have access to the journals I can find it based on that. The title of the article is helpful but normally not needed.

With a photographic memory that would be trivial for you to do

So give the reference or admit that you lied.

Draugh39 2 hours ago
@Draugh39 I have referenced well over 20 of them and more. I even put the DNA of the predecessor of the Chicken on there. Don't be an egotistical fool. There is nothing worse that that for a scientist to be. If you want to know then go look. If you don't want to know then keep your head in the sand and all your beliefs in tact. Beliefs destroy credibility. I don't have any beliefs. No religion. I go for the truth. People are stupid. With my IQ I see stupid people everywhere.

GoodScienceForYou 2 hours ago
@Draugh39 Evolution of gene function and regulatory control after whole-genome duplication: Comparative analyses in vertebrates Karin S. Kassahn, 1 Vinh T. Dang, 1 Simon J. Wilkins, 2 Andrew C. Perkins, 2 and Mark A. Ragan 1,3 1 The University of Queensland, Institute for Molecular Bioscience and ARC Centre of Excellence in Bioinformatics, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia;
GoodScienceForYou 2 hours ago
@Draugh39 remainder of heading: 2

The University of Queensland, Institute for Molecular Bioscience and Australian Zebrafish Phenomics Facility, Brisbane, QLD

4072, Australia

GoodScienceForYou 2 hours ago
@Draugh39 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Part 4:

The Molecular Sequence Evidence

Copyright © 1999-2004 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.

GoodScienceForYou 2 hours ago
@Draugh39 I just gave you two. I have the one on the laryngeal nerve as well. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Part 3:

Opportunism and Evolutionary Constraint

Copyright © 1999-2004 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.

GoodScienceForYou 2 hours ago
@Draugh39 You can go and get the rest. And read my explanations for my conclusions.

GoodScienceForYou 2 hours ago
@Draugh39 Identification of the Yellow Skin Gene Reveals a Hybrid Origin of the Domestic Chicken. Jonas Eriksson1, Greger Larson1, Ulrika Gunnarsson1, Bertrand Bed'hom2, Michele Tixier-Boichard2, Lina Strömstedt3, Dominic Wright1, Annemieke Jungerius4, Addie Vereijken4, Ettore Randi5, Per Jensen6, Leif Andersson1,3*

GoodScienceForYou 2 hours ago
@Draugh39 second part on the chicken: 1 Department of Medical Biochemistry and Microbiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, 2 INRA, AgroParisTech, UMR1236 Génétique et Diversité Animales, Jouy-en-Josas, France, 3 Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden,

GoodScienceForYou 2 hours ago
@Draugh39 third part on the chicken; 4 Hendrix Genetics, Breeding Research & Technology Centre, Boxmeer, The Netherlands, 5 Istituto Nazionale per la Fauna Selvatica, Laboratorio di Genetica, Ozzano Emilia, Italy, 6 IFM Biology, Linköping University, SE-58183 Linköping, Sweden

GoodScienceForYou 2 hours ago
@Draugh39 I am tired of being told to believe in science by people who don't even use the scientific methods.

I have been a scientists all of my adult life, and I would never get a degree in some ideology that has no evidence to back it. There is no magical processes, nor mystical causes in genetics. There is no magic "random mutations" because random violates the first rule of science, CAUSE and RESULT or Cause and Effect. There is no magic that fixes genomes. PERIOD.

GoodScienceForYou 1 hour ago
@Draugh39 Take your time, deep breath, relax. Stop being angry. I am here to help you learn what is actually shown in evidence. If you only get your information from those who's agenda is to perpetuate that which has been proven wrong and within the last 10 years, then you are not honest with yourself. The DNA, ERV's. Fossils, and just the characteristics of the chimps gorillas, orangutans also fit. There is only degraded genomes with no magical "fixes" or more complexity.

GoodScienceForYou 3 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam   hide
Not Spam
@GoodScienceForYou

I'm not agry at all I'm just tired of being lied to all the time. So now I have called you on it.

Again give the reference to the scientific study that back up your claim or admit that you lied. when you stated that "Chimps, Gorillas, orangutans, macaques all devolved from humans" and that "The DNA backs this up precisely."

If you actually have this information it is trivial to give the reference to it.

Draugh39 3 hours ago
@Draugh39 There is nothing about what I teach that is not verifiable. I have the dictionary with the real meaning of this word. Evolution: "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character." Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.

GoodScienceForYou 5 hours ago
@GoodScienceForYou

There are many definitions for the word evolution and I quoted the latest edition of Webster in regards to biology - you don't, thus you are dishonest .

However, OED is the premier dictionary of the English language, and it reads.

"Evolution - Biol. The transformation of animals, plants, and other living organisms into different forms by the accumulation of changes over successive generations; the transmutation of species ."

Draugh39 3 hours ago
@Draugh39 If you want to indoctrinate into an ideology, the best place is in the classroom. If you want to control the indoctrination change the definitions to match the belief. They realized that evolution is not towards any form of increased complexity, so they use the definition of genetics to replace it with. However the foundation of this etymology means towards the more complex. Computers evolve, humans don't

GoodScienceForYou 1 hour ago
@Draugh39 Evodelusionists are dishonest, and concoct the story to cause belief. They do this out of the "goodness of their hearts" I am sure of that. but it is all nonsense. There is NO increase in gene expression that would give rise to any belief that humans or any creature is going from simple to more fit and more complex.

There are over 2000 genetic diseases in the human family now, and I know for sure you have at least ten of them that will trigger in your life.

GoodScienceForYou 5 hours ago
@GoodScienceForYou

search. "Observed cases of speciation" in google.

Draugh39 3 hours ago
@Draugh39 I have read all of that. Speciation does not show evolution. There is only de-evolutoin the loss of gene functions at every speciation event. Go look. I am way ahead of on this. The definition of species is such a gray area, and there are species that have been separated by over 2 million years that can still mate and have offspring. In order to show evolution you have to prove that this any of them has 1/ added new gene functions, not found in any of the prior generations.

GoodScienceForYou 3 hours ago
@GoodScienceForYou

"Speciation does not show evolution..."

ROFL!! that is exactly what it shows.

"2 million years that can still mate and have offspring"

Which is exactly what we expect. You said you know something about this, why don't you understand even the most simple parts of evolution then?!

"In order to show evolution you have to prove that this any of them has 1/ added new gene functions, not found in any of the prior generations."

I refer to "speciation" above.

Draugh39 3 hours ago
@Draugh39 Accurate and efficient reconstruction of deep phylogenies from structured RNAs Roman R. Stocsits 1, *, Harald Letsch 1 , Jana Hertel 2, *, Bernhard Misof 3 and Peter F. Stadler 2,4,5,6, Look closely at the DNA ties to the primates, realizing that all of them are much younger than humans an all have diminished human genomes.
GoodScienceForYou 52 minutes ago
@Draugh39 The old world monkey have fusions of the human genomes chromosomes and have 2 million less base pairs. They also carry the ERV markers. This shows a direct genetic lineage from humans as their common ancestor. They are much younger than humans.

How is it possible for humans and chimps to have a magical common ancestor when they are so close genetically and the chimp is way younger as a species on this earth. Chimps are obviously the result of a diminished human genome.

GoodScienceForYou 40 minutes ago
@GoodScienceForYou

You don't even understand what you read!? The ERV shows that we have more insertion points than the apes of these specific types retro viruses. The ERV can't simply disappear which mean that we branched off from them!!! Boy for a person that claims to have an IQ of 180 you do show an utter lack of understanding.

By the way a reference is written as follows: Author, Journal name, year of publication, pages. You don't put the address

Draugh39 16 minutes ago
@Draugh39 Having more insertion points at this time means that we have gained in retro virus, because of our life styles. We are exposed to many more virus infections. You are angry, because you are not ready to get clear of these ideologies of your belief. What you do is based on faith and is not following the real evidence.

Chimps are much younger than humans and there is way to much genetically close for anything else. The others are not much of an issue and they are also all younger.

GoodScienceForYou 11 minutes ago
@GoodScienceForYou

You really don't understand that ERV graph then. If chimps and the other apes "de-evolved" from humans (as you state) it would require that the ERV insertions poofed out of existance. That doesn't happen. It would also require that human cromosome No 2 split up. You really don't know what you talk about. get an education.

Draugh39 2 minutes ago
@Draugh39 By the way, I just cut and pasted the top of the article for you to google much easier. If you put it in the google box that way you can't miss it. Don' t be a jerk. I was impressed with you until your denial methods of what is obvious. I know it goes against your faith and belief, but it IS what is in the evidence. There is never any NET increase in complexity any any genetic lineage as it goes through time. This is shown in DNA.

GoodScienceForYou 7 minutes ago
@Draugh39 "mean that we branched off from them!!" Or they branched off from US, is what follows the evidence. And as time goes on we gathered more. It is pure logic, and is objective logic, not based on any faith or ideas of "evolution". I don't believe in anything that people teach, I find the truth for myself.

GoodScienceForYou 4 minutes ago
@Draugh39 It only works ONE WAY. There's no evidence of any increase in gene function. There are only significant diminished gene expressions shown in DNA. There are over 2000 known genetic illnesses in the human genome. They don't magically fix themselves by any mystical causes. They are permanent and can only be removed by genetic engineering. This is OBVIOUS. and if you can't see it, your education is in the way.

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."A Einstein

GoodScienceForYou
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: AlanCFAs idea of evidence for evolution
Reply #14 - Feb 14th, 2011 at 10:40pm
 
@UnexpectedWonder I realise that there is a lot of confusion about this. This is mainly the result of the US's demonisation of the word "atheist". Atheists in the US oftenly call themselves "agnostic", just so they wouldn't be the target of demonisation. So they just "moderatly" say "there is no proof of god though, so we doubt". What they really mean is "don't be such an idiot believing in fairy tales".

Just realise that (a)gnosticism and (a)theism are NOT mutually exclusive.

ScientificBob 17 hours ago
@UnexpectedWonder Theism deals with belief in a personal god. Gnosticism deals with knowledge. One is a qualifier of the other:

- gnostic theist: I know there is a god.

- agnostic theist: I have faith there is a god

- gnostic athiest: I know there is no god

- agnostic atheist: I don't believe in gods.

See?

ScientificBob 17 hours ago
gnostic theist: I 'know' there is a god(s)

agnostic theist: I think there is a god(s)

gnostic atheist: I 'know' there is no god(s)

agnostic atheist: I think there is no god(s)

So many problems would be avoided if people just knew what these 4 simple categories were.

In my opinion, since we can't "know" either way, we are all either agnostic theists or agnostic atheists -

so it just comes down to whether or not you think a supernatural intelligence that controls morality is logical or not.

leighgridley 16 hours ago
@leighgridley Indeed. I have also always maintained that those who call/describe themselves (directly or indirectly) as being "gnostic theist" or "gnostic atheist" are either intellectually dishonest, delusional or simply lying.

Contrary to popular opinion, atheists can be intellectually dishonest as well. Smiley

ScientificBob 15 hours ago
@UnexpectedWonder Common ancestry is a fact. The theory explains HOW this happened: through mutation and natural selection. To doubt this is just silly. The evidence for it is completely overwhelming. More factors then JUST natural selection (ie: what lives and reproduces carries on the genes that allowed for it) come into play off course (genetic drift, sexual selection etc) and no doubt in my mind that more will be uncovered.

ScientificBob 17 hours ago
@UnexpectedWonder How come the chimpansee's short term memory out performs us 1000-fold?

Reason: they live in trees and swing from tree to tree. Outstanding short term memory enables them to perfectly remember where every branch is in a split second . This allows for fast travel through trees.

Why do humans have advanced intellect? We left our comfort zone in the jungle. We were a vulnerable social species that were faced by all sorts of threats. Our intelligence offered a way out.

ScientificBob 17 hours ago
@JayMerc75 No scientist is debating evolution theory.

Creatards are spewing nonsense and scientists are correcting them. There is no debate. There is only ignorant people who know NOTHING about biology who need to be educated - and some scientists are attempting to do that. The others are just going about their daily business working withing evolutionary biology, laughing at people like you.

ScientificBob 17 hours ago
@JayMerc75 Again, what we have in common with other animals can be mapped PERFECTLY onto the phylogenetic tree. You can draw this tree INDEPENDENTLY based on geographic spread of species, the fossil record, DNA strings, single genes, anatomy, fysiology,... And it's ALWAYS the SAME tree.

It's a FAMILY TREE. The closer we are related to another species, the more things we have in common in EVERY aspect (geography, DNA, gene sequences, single genes, anatomy, fysiology etc etc).

ScientificBob 17 hours ago
@ScientificBob I was confused by the term "fysiology" until I saw you were from Belgium. The English version is "physiology". Terrific post by the way.

ExtantFrodo 14 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo Ha, thanks Smiley Yeah, even in dutch I get confused about "f" and "ph". Especially in Belgium, with all the history with the french. We borrow heavily, in language, from french and english. It's "f" and "ph" all over the place in such words and sometimes, both are even correct. lol.

ScientificBob 9 hours ago
@ernesto7012 However, this does NOT change the fact that DNA-wise, we are far more similar to chimps then chimps are to gorilla's. DNA doesn't lie. If people want to claim that we can't use DNA as a comparative standard, then they should also claim that paternal testing can't work. Wich they off course will never do. And that's why these creatards are hypocrits and liars.

ScientificBob 18 hours ago
@entificBob Ah but then again, if you don’t have a genetic sample from the child how can you prove the parents had a child? Without the missing link between Humans and Chimps how can you assert to have proof; you can say comparative DNA suggests to the existence of CHLCA but you can never say that it proves its existence Theories are never certain and Evolution is proof of this and just like the existence of God is rejected by lack of physical proof by logic Evolution should be equally rejected

ernesto7012 10 hours ago
@ernesto7012 That didn't make a lot of sense and it (again) show your lack of comprehension about the subject. First of all, "theory" in science means EXPLANATION. NOT "guess" or "hunch".

Secondly, paternal testing is practical application of the exact same principles. It all boils down to the hereditary and accumulative nature of DNA. This is why the test works. And this is why the genographic project works. And this is how we can measure the level of "relatedness" between 2 organisms.

ScientificBob 9 hours ago
@ernesto7012 Once more, to make sure you get it. DNA is CUMULATIVE. What happens to it in A is traceable in it's offspring's DNA if the event was hereditary. If we map out our DNA compared to ANY OTHER creature, we get an hierarchical tree that corresponds PERFECTLY with the fossil record, comparative anatomy,.. even the geographic spread of species. This is because it is a FAMILY TREE. You can debunk evolution by finding an organism that breaks this tree. You'll get a nobel prize for sure!

ScientificBob 9 hours ago
You know that technology we use for paternity suits? It takes the chromosomes and using a special code selective cutter breaks the chromosome into CHUNKS and we sort the chunks according to size. The result (just by weight of segments) is sufficient to indict for murder.

In human vrs chimp we are looking at the actual text of the DNA base pairs, it's not merely similar in the functional 'useful' regions, it is identical in virtually all the non-coding & broken places as well as ERV locations.

ExtantFrodo 9 hours ago
@ernesto7012 Here's the thing. How do you know Joey has cheated on his school test? If he cheated he probably copied the wrong answers along with the right ones. Getting the right answer is statistically not abnormal, but two people constantly getting the same WRONG answers (ERVs,pseudoggenes,noncoding mutation patterns) indicates cheating(copying) in other words...common descent. Google evolutoin of the primate GULO gene for an excellent example.

ExtantFrodo 9 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo Yes, exactly, the odds of chimps and human not from the same genetic lineage is phenomenal. I put videos on this on my forum. The odds of humans being the chimps "common ancestor" are over 1/.99 meaning that chimps are degraded human genome descendent's. This is also because the oldest upright human is over 6 million years old according to radiometric dating. Chimps are no more than 500 thousand years old.

GoodScienceForYou 9 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo ANSWER Joey has to be caught on the act to positively say that he has cheated other way you are just assuming same goes for the existence of CHLCA base on DNA testing you are just assuming its existence There is your leap of Faith There aren’t any fossils for CHLCA, proto-chimp or proto-gorilla you are just assuming their existence; as a believer I’m not ashamed to say that I walk by Faith but you have to admit you have some of that too

No specimen No test No Proof Simple as That

ernesto7012 8 hours ago
@ernesto7012 Having the same WRONG answers is equivalent to being caught in the act. I will post the statistics next. You will note I only post for up to THREE. I leave it as an exercise for you to figure what the odds are for the HUNDREDS of different species of primate each of which share the broken GULO gene.

ExtantFrodo 8 hours ago
We are talking about the same mutation in the same gene.

The odds of this happening at random in 2 separate organisms with human sized genomes(HSG) is 1 in 3 Billion.

The odds of this happening at random in 3 separate organisms with HSG is 1 in 9 Billion Billion.

The odds of this happening at random in 4 separate organisms with HSG is 1 in 27 Billion Billion Billion.

The odds of this happening in hundreds of different primates due to common ancestor 1:1

ExtantFrodo 8 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo Absolutely, and they all de-evolved from humans and intermixing the breeding with primates.

This is shown in all the evidence, if you look.

How many fossils of Gorilla? Chimp? Orangutan?

Zero, One, One

The orangutan is from 100 thou to 2mil much younger than upright human predecessors. Chimp is 500thou.

But the dating is flawed, of course, because it is based on assumptions that can never be verified.

Even so the theory of human as the common ancestor fits the evidence we do have

GoodScienceForYou 8 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo If you open your eyes, you too will see that all of the evidence points only to humans as the common ancestor of all the apes and continual degradation of the original human genome as we see today.

GoodScienceForYou 8 hours ago
@GoodScienceForYou "If you open your eyes, you too will see that all of the evidence points only to humans as the common ancestor of all the apes"

chimps, gorillas, orangutans, bonoboes, macaques, all descended from humans, but without evolution. You never cease to amaze me.

ExtantFrodo 6 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo Go look at the evidence. It is all there for you to see. Why do you need this magical ape man that has never been seen, and all the evidence points in the opposite direction from any form of evolution as defined.

Evolution: "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character."

GoodScienceForYou 5 hours ago
@GoodScienceForYou Could you explain to me why you think that genetic algorithms being restricted to pseudo-random mutation means that the positive results obtained are invalid?

ExtantFrodo 5 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo Because it is artificial and does not represent reality. Life is not a computer game.

GoodScienceForYou 5 hours ago
@GoodScienceForYou In as much as it is a model of reality, I ask why can you not force evolution to not occur even as god of the simulation? Why does it have to occur no matter what you try to do? Why does it have to occur even in theory when you apply all mathematical rigor to it?

ExtantFrodo 5 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo "Sexual intercourse plays a major role in Bonobo society observed in captivity, being used as what some scientists perceive as a greeting, a means of conflict resolution, and post-conflict reconciliation. Bonobos are the only non-human animal to have been observed engaging in all of the following sexual activities: face-to-face genital sex, tongue kissing, and oral sex". There are a lot of Human characteristics in Chimp family.

GoodScienceForYou 5 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo 2,588,000 to 12,000 years Is where the macaques fit, and they have reduced chromosomes from Human and are definitely and offshoot of the chimp at 500,000 years. The timeline fits just fine for degradation from Human on down to this time. The chromosomes show alignment with humans and some more fusions.

Chomosomes don't un-fuse. Once they are fused the don't evolve and separate.

GoodScienceForYou 3 hours ago
There are almost 2 million less base pairs in the macaques as well. This means de-evolution for sure with all the other evidence.

GoodScienceForYou 3 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo Are Scientific Truths based on odds? Because I thought those where based on first hand experimentation Would you believe in the existence of God if I tell you that there is a 100% possibility that God exists and that I am the physical proof for that.

Other than my words what would you ask of me to accept the existence of God? Wouldn’t it be a first hand experience? Why am I wrong by asking the same? Evolution is not a proven fact; too many missing links just keep it a Theory

ernesto7012 7 hours ago
@ernesto7012 Google "Practical applications of evolution". That shows just how much evolutionary theory has moved from HYPOTHESIS to THEORY. A BIG distinction here that you seem not to realize is that a theory in science is something that has been proven time and again. The theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution. Also, watch this vid:

watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw

This shows a prediction evolutionary theory made that we discovered was true. Against the odds.

ProblemHonorStudent 7 hours ago
@ProblemHonorStudent Is it a proven fact that CHLCA ever existed? NO it is a hypothesis a simple supposition within the Evolution Theory What I’m saying is that you can’t claim to have the truth when you have no means to prove it The scientists can play with theories but my Faith does not depend in the results of those theories and if you are going to blame me because I have faith; wouldn’t it be better to discern your own faith?

ernesto7012 6 hours ago
@ernesto7012 I don't blame you for your faith, under one condition; You don't apply your faith-based beliefs to politics or science. In other words, let the pastors do the preaching, let the teachers do the teaching, and let the scientists discern truth from fiction, based on the evidence. While every single piece of the puzzle isn't in, that's no reason to discount the theory. We don't completely understand atoms, but we have a pretty good handle on them. Practical applications, like I said.

ProblemHonorStudent 6 hours ago
@ernesto7012 Evolution withstands the obliteration test. Obliterate all writings and memory of evolution, it can be reformed entirely from evidence. Obliterate all writings and memory of a religion, it's gone forever. It can't be reformed from evidence.

ExtantFrodo 5 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo Actually the evidence is against evolution. The ideological belief is not founded on the evidence. When it started there was no DNA, and not many fossils. It was an idea and that idea took hold in people's minds and people project belief on the world all the time. There is no evolution, only adaptation, and de-evolution or downgrading of all species. There is no evidence for added complexity.

GoodScienceForYou 5 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo At the time this "theory" was presented there was no evidence to give rise to this. It came from an archaic belief system. PERIOD. Then this guy had this idea that magical causes were in nature. Just like all religions it took hold and people want to believe in this. It is not self generating. DNA pretty much destroys it.

GoodScienceForYou 5 hours ago
@GoodScienceForYou Darwin spent decades going over his collected data. To say there was no evidence at the time is a lie.

ExtantFrodo 5 hours ago
@Frodo Let’s say someone obliterate all writings and memory from both science and religion from the world I propose that history will repeat itself humans will look for a higher power then some will experience this Higher Power and some don’t dividing the human race again between those who believe and those who don’t believe, believers will say My Spirit tells me so The Unbelievers will say We are animals, let us live our only lives as we want, besides where do you get this thing called Spirit?

ernesto7012 4 hours ago
@ernesto7012 "Are Scientific Truths based on odds?"

When the odds of something occurring at random are billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions to one against and the odds of it occurring due to some other explanation are one to one for it then yes to not call it true is just plain stupid. Especially when it's also parsimonious with all the other evidence.

ExtantFrodo 5 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo The brokne GULO gene is ovbvious from the human ancestor. It also fits perfectly.

GoodScienceForYou 8 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo The assumption is that there is some magical ape man that these creatures humans and primates came from. The evidence of ONLY continual NET degradation is against this idea of any improvement from the crude, primitive to the advanced and more intelligent etc. So, the great primates can only have de-evolved from humans with superior genetic structures, superior brain capacity, superior abilities to adapt and survive. Most of those are gone now. We are very weak physically compared.

GoodScienceForYou 8 hours ago
@ernesto7012 There is no "agenda". There is no "special" evolution. Yes, we APPEAR to have less in common with chimps then chimps do with gorilla's, yes. But that's just looks. And to be honest, it's not THAT big a difference: bigger brain (as good as ALL changes to our head is a result of this), we walk upright, we lost our fur (and our skin softened). As far as looks goes, that's about it.

ScientificBob 18 hours ago
Just wondering why no one has figured this out: for millions of years, humans have been here, but still have no idea or clue how the human body fully works or functions. yet we are slowly trying to "create" robotic simulations of humans. So does that not somehow clue in that the human body is in itself a super organic computer? which can never be replicated. and also with millions of species being different unique organic computers. all supposedly started from a single cell bacteria.

zeineguy 18 hours ago
« for millions of years, humans have been here »

Bit less. Current best estimate is 300.000 years tops. Agriculte has only existed for about 11.000 years. We developed writing less than 8000 years ago. And that's when things really started happening.

XGralgrathor 13 hours ago
@XGralgrathor current best extimate.. wow nice of you to bring the facts. and how did you come to this conclusion? honestly why dont you just not comment or even better, just say WE DONT f**kING KNOW!!! cause that is the correct answer. when was the last catastrophic event on earth? it is at that point that humans came to being on this planet.

zeineguy 6 hours ago
« So does that not somehow clue in that the human body is in itself a super organic computer? »

No, it doesn't. It shows that humans are slowly learning to understand and mimic nature.

XGralgrathor 13 hours ago
@XGralgrathor lmfao

zeineguy 6 hours ago
amazing video. So we can find dinosaur fossils and bones, millions of years ago.. but we still havent found that "missing" link. somewhere that it mutated twice with one side going to humans and the other going to apes. Seriously, Dawkins just picked a side less popular and using it to make a living. Has to keep up the shill to put out more books for the trolls. But even he has NO real inclination as to where we came from. POOF!! its magic!!

zeineguy 18 hours ago
Enlightened Theologians know that evolution is true due to the fact that the evidence is so overwhelming. If only more religious people were somewhat enlightened.........

MVT44 21 hours ago
This guy is a joke!! He always has a made up ready answer to try to confuse you. This freak insults my intelligence and you wonder why people act like animals because we are taught that we came from them. lol

mindsprain 22 hours ago
@mindsprain "act like animals" ... you mean sharing loving raising our young helping eachother survive difficult times.. those sort of things animals do?

ExtantFrodo 22 hours ago
Tsk, tsk dawkins!, where is your evidence???, 6million years ago my arse!, just more assumptions and speculation!, what made us suddently barnch off???, evolution raises more questions than answers!.

Aheadstix85 23 hours ago
The Corporations want fodder for the corporations that do not have "ethical" issues that would stop them from getting as much money as possible. Using science to promote atheism is good for corporations. You do not want a CEO with a conscience. Understand.? Corporations own the Ivy League universities in US and Europe with endowments. One has a $3 billion endowment in excess of anything they can spend.

GoodScienceForYou 1 day ago
Ah, atheism. The perfect position to take when you are a rebel who wants an excuse to commit crimes.

Thankfully, the righteous will always safeguard society against these types of evil.

EspnNBAGeneral 1 day ago
@EspnNBAGeneral The Corporations want fodder for the corporations that do not have "ethical" issues that would stop them from getting as much money as possible. Using science to promote atheism is good for corporations. You do not want a CEO with a conscience. Understand.? Corporations own the Ivy League universities in US and Europe with endowments. One has a $3 billion endowment in excess of anything they can spend.

GoodScienceForYou 1 day ago
Stephen Baldwin making comments on science is like my cat analyzing motorcycle technology.

donfishmaster 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam   show
UnHolyBabble 1 day ago
I like how this guy has no more than a wall chart for evidence to his claims. What a fool

Reisaei 1 day ago
@Reisaei and a few hundred years of research.

GutlessNut 1 day ago
@Reisaei Are you f**king serious? You need more than a chart to realize you look sort of like an ape, because we have common ancestors? If you can't understand that, then stop trying. You're clearly lost forever, guy.

beatonm198 1 day ago
@beatonm198 "because we have common ancestors?" The common ancestor is human. This is in all the evidence. Goto GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum. I have decoded all the evidence for you there.

Evolution is a religion with mystical common ancestors that they never seem to find. This is because they are still trying to hold on to this ideology for over 150 years of constant evidence against it.

GoodScienceForYou 1 day ago
The fossils are dated by the rocks they are found in the rocks are dated by the fossils found in them there are no transitional forms found in the fossil record. Jesus loves everyone and someday we all have to face him .

primetimebuckeye 1 day ago
@primetimebuckeye wrong. the rocks are date by radio isotope ratios of parent/daughter content.

if you've many hourglasses (say a 1hr, a 2hr, a 3hr & a 9hr) and you test a sample and find

the 1hourglass is empty (more than 1hr)

the 2hourglass is 3/4ths empty (1.5 hrs)

the 3hourglass is 1/2 empty (1.5 hrs)

the 9hourglass is 1/6th empty (1.5 hrs)

And You obtain similar corresponding results with the vast majority of the samples you take (and showing greater time with deeper samples).

Conclusion?

ExtantFrodo 1 day ago
@ExtantFrodo "Conclusion?" It is based on primitive assumptions and beliefs. They don't even know what "time" is.

GoodScienceForYou 22 hours ago
@GoodScienceForYou Primitive assumptions like "whoa, when I obtain the same ratios for all these element no matter where i sample on the earth and it fits this mathematical model of radioactive decay very very well, I should just throw out any notion that it's reliable or significant."

time for you to go to bed bonzo.

ExtantFrodo 22 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo Yes Primitive assumptions are not science. They do not have enough data to use this radiometric dating. There is no way to verify any of it with historical data beyond 10,000 years. That is like trying to light a 47 mile road in pitch black with a flashlight that shines for 6 inches. How can you fall for a bunch of retarded assumptions like that?

GoodScienceForYou 19 hours ago
@GoodScienceForYou Give a set of samples to different labs and they will put them in the same order. The exact same order they were in the undisturbed earth. By your failure of understanding that should be impossible. So how do they do it?

ExtantFrodo 14 hours ago
@primetimebuckeye Evolution is constantly in motion, therefore ALL forms found are transitional. Fossils are rocks themselves, generally created by the addition of minerals to bone over time which permeates them and allows for their ability to last so long within the rock. Know what you're talking about before you refute plain and obvious evidence against your highly held beliefs.

beatonm198 1 day ago
@beatonm198 They are all transitional toward de-evolution. All of the evidence on ALL creatures shows only a one way path of degrading and gene loss. This is in all the DNA of all species. Why don't you know this?

GoodScienceForYou 1 day ago
@GoodScienceForYou Correct, the C
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