The Collapse of Darwinism

Seems to me, that minnemoose is a power hungry, inconsiderate jerk.The reasoning behind my judgement goes as follows:Mammuthus refuses to post regularly here because of you maam.She called me an obnoxious twit, not realizing that noone aside from Nosy was effected by the post. Not one complaint was posted... Aside from Nosy. Even he admitted it lasted a second or two.You have taken credit where it is certainly not due.Her reason for suspending me was ludicris, based mainly on the fact that she doesn't particulary appreciate me posting here it has seemed to me since I joined in Nov, 03.The "rant" barely affected the general flow of the discussion, for example GBC's post right after the brief posting.I guess it was easy enough to suspend me after my brother had been, but convienence gives you no reason to suspend me.Whatever, it was just one day, but on priniple alone I was angered.

---

porteus@gmail.comminnemoose is a jerk, dont worry the routine hasn't been destroyed...

Bye. see Message 61

---

So far, my favorite is from Chapter 3:"...and a seemingly conscious cell membrane..."This is a new one on me.Then they say right after:"For a cell to survive, it has to have all these organelles in place at once...this could not have arisen through a series of coincidences."Nice, not only wrong, but misleading at the same time.Then they say that Crick said DNA could never arise by chance.
I can think of one quote that can be twisted, but even after twisting it doesn't quite say what they want it to.I also love how they exhalt the Encyclopedia Brittanica! This thing is funny. I hope no one ever takes it seriously.Jonny Cochrane would be proud:
"There is no mechanism for this alleged process called Evolution..."Yeah, Chapter 4 is one long lie.Then in Chapter 6, they use a tactic to say that Archeopterix is not a transitional species because there are existing birds with claws at the ends of their wings. Then they say that fish could never have come onto land, but there are existing "fish" species that come onto land, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ok, what kills me the most is that they don't have a problem with an Earth that is at least 500 myo. Then they talk about all these extinct species. I think they are implying that EVERY species that ever lived was alive on Earth at one time. This poses a multitude of problems.When they talk about the Cambrian Explosion, they talk about trilobites, etc. but they don't talk about the Cambrian humans.They don't explain why there are no stories involving trilobite stew, no ancient records about hunting Diplodocus.Do they expect someone to buy their version of creationism, one that looks like evolution in every way, but does not involve physical mechanisms, only the supernatural?This message has been edited by gnojek, 06-06-2005 08:38 PMThis message has been edited by gnojek, 06-06-2005 08:38 PM

that was one of the early concerns voiced by (especially by religious) critics, but you also need to consider the skeleton within the framework of other fossils from the same time period, and these fit right in where they should have. further discoveries have only strengthened the assurance that lucy was a healthy female australopithicine, as they too are the same sizes and shapes as those of the 'Lucy' find. this is not a matter of being the {only} fossil representative, but the most complete skeleton (and thus avoids the criticism of combining fossils from several finds into a "chimera" composite).

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

The Laetoli footprints found by Mary Leakey are from the same time period (3.6 mya) and match the footbones of other australopithicine fossils (though lucy is footloose)there is a photo at
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/laetoli.htm

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Sir Linus Pauling did the original work on DNA. WATson and Crick stole the X-ray pictures of DNA from the Dark Room of Dr. Dorothy Hodgkin and published the paper in Nature, a prestigious journal in 1954. Because their paper was the first one on this topic, they were given the Nobel Prize. If this is how they won the Nobel prize, how credible is his theory on DNA and evolution?This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 03-02-2006 09:13 PM

You are posting in too many places without thinking about what you are posting. You are not doing a good job of replying to criticisms of your posts.If you continue to behave this way I will give you a suspension for some hours to think more carefully about what you post.Thank you for trying to learn.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 03-02-2006 09:53 PM

oops duplicateThis message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-02-2006 09:54 PM