Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-19-2019 12:43 PM
30 online now:
1.61803, AZPaul3, edge, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo, Sarah Bellum, xongsmith (9 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,034 Year: 12,070/19,786 Month: 1,851/2,641 Week: 360/708 Day: 54/81 Hour: 3/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1126 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 44 of 323 (524763)
09-18-2009 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Archangel
09-18-2009 8:29 AM


Neanderthals are apes?
Hey arch,

Just so I get this right, you are saying the the three photos Apostate posted of Neanderthals are clearly apes? I am assuming, now, you mean "apes" in the "just an ape" sense of the word as in "ape kind as opposed to human kind" not "neanderthals are apes because all hominins are a derived clade of African apes".

If that is case you have some 'splanin' to do. Have you seen a neander skeleton? We have pretty much complete ones. While different in many important ways from modern humans they are much much more like us than 'just an ape'. They walked upright very much like we do, the differences are mainly due to bone and muscle mass. They also buried their dead in a ritualized manner, probably had music, etc. Most creationists I know claim they were 'just human', you are the first in some time to claim them as apes. Please elaborate!


Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Archangel, posted 09-18-2009 8:29 AM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Archangel, posted 09-19-2009 7:04 AM Lithodid-Man has responded

    
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1126 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 69 of 323 (524859)
09-19-2009 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Archangel
09-19-2009 7:04 AM


Re: Neanderthals are apes?
Wow arch, wow. Okay, I was just pointing out to you that neanderthals are pretty much human. That is a fact whether or not you can see it. You are the only creationist I have encountered who thinks otherwise. This issue is not about anyone forcing you to explain your worldview through our interpretation. You are being presented with evidence and choosing to ignore. I am not talking about evidence for evolution, I am talking about evidence that frauds have not contributed to an understanding of evolution.

Every one of your claims in the OP have been addressed and shown to be just wrong. Yet here you are over 50 posts in claiming "I have already shown how corrupted the evolutionists interpretation of evidence is in various posts on various threads" when you have done no such thing. Here is a question I want you to serious ponder:

After this thread will you ever again make the claim the evolutionists used Nebraska Man to prove evolution? And that it constitutes a fraud?

If your answer is no, then some good has been done. If the answer is yes then you have no business lobbing the word 'fraud' at anyone.


Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Archangel, posted 09-19-2009 7:04 AM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2009 6:05 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded
 Message 72 by Archangel, posted 09-19-2009 9:09 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

    
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1126 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 195 of 323 (525484)
09-23-2009 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Archangel
09-23-2009 9:27 AM


Coelacanthiformes and the Green River Formation
While this has been stated many many times, I think it deserves mentioning once again. Just for your information Harun Yahya is a terrible source of information. I am reminded of one of their videos where they show one of the Pliocene hyena skulls from China and present it as "This 80 million year old tiger skull is identical to those living today". Your cut and paste from living fossils is also a cut and paste from the Harun Yahya site.

ABE: I just finished reading through your Living Fossils page, and found a great example of fraud. They describe the discovery of the Okapi in 1901 and the fossil relatives dating back to the Miocene. All well and true. But then the claim is made that this discovery invalidates the scenario of horse evolution! FYI - the okapi, its fossil relatives, and the giraffe belong to the group of mammals known as artiodactyls (even-toed hoofed mammals). Horses, rhinos, and extinct relitives are in the group of mammals called perissodactyls which are probably not closely related to the even-toed hoofed ungulates. I will argue that no 'evolutionist' anytime anywhere believed that the okapi had anything to do with horse evolution. This is yet another creationist fraud. Back to the fishes....

Arch writes:

Based on these fossils, evolutionist biologists suggested that this creature had a non-functioning, "primitive" as evolutionists put it, lung.

I am assuming by this you/they mean that this was shown to be false. The living coelacanth does have a primitive 'lung'. A far better wording would be "The coelacanth, like all living and extinct crossopterygian fishes including tetrapods, posses a primitive swim bladder that often functions as a lung". This is why the other living non-tetrapod species are collectively called "lung fishes". In fact, this 'lung' is seen in most primitive actinopterygian (ray-finned bony fishes) fishes. In advanced bony fishes the 'lung' is fully developed as a buoyancy organ or absent altogether. The lung of the modern coelacanth is lipid filled which makes it the only surviving lungfish that is not an obligate air-breather (they drown if not allowed to breath air).

Arch writes:

Speculation regarding the Cœlacanth became so widespread that the fish was cited in many scientific publications as the most significant evidence for evolution. Paintings and drawings of it leaving the water for the land quickly began appearing in books and magazines. Of course, all these assumptions, images and claims, were based on the idea that the creature was extinct.

Not even sure where to begin... I collect old scientific books and literature relating to evolution. In essence what is being stated here is that at some time between 1859 and 1938 the fossil coelacanth was regarded as "the most significant evidence for evolution" and paintings and drawings were produced that showed coelacanths leaving the water. Here is a fun challenge: Name one. Just one. Find me a reference from between those dates that claims coelacanths as the most significant evidence for evolution. The earliest drawings I have seen (or still see) show Eusthenopteron foordi or similar fish but not any coelacanth. I have seen, however, Eusthenopteron misidentified as a coelacanth in creationist literature, so perhaps that is the source of the claim.

By saying the above ideas were "based on the idea that the creature was extinct" the implication is given that somehow the living specimen dethroned the coelacanth from tetrapod history (and by association all lobe-fins of any subclass). All the finding of two species of living coelacanth did was disprove the idea that the entire lineage went extinct 70 mya. It gave us more material than we had before to resolve the early history of tetrapod evolution. Why creationists think this hurt the science is beyond me. Molecular studies have confirmed that both the coelacanth and lungfishes are closer to living tetrapods than they are to any other living fishes.

By the way, the claim that the modern coelacanth is identical to the extinct forms is simply false. They are different genera from the extinct forms. Creationist sites rarely mention that extinct coelacanths are shallow water freshwater species usually under 50 cm in length, while the living species are deep sea, saltwater forms reaching almost 2 meters.

Now onto Green River...

Arch writes:

So what are we to take from this. Are 50 million year old fossils surviving with soft tissue attached or could there be some massive misinterpretations of evidence taking place by the evolution community? Not to mention of course the incredible denial of reality which considers that such a thing is possible based on real time observations of how quickly a body decomposes in the real word. I mean, must I post another time lapse video for you deniers of reality?

I have a fair collection of Green River fish fossils. What makes these fossils amazing is that you can see, in detail, where the soft tissue used to be and even its details. There is not one piece of actual soft tissue present. Your wording makes me think that you think these fish still have flesh on them. They are all 100% mineralized. The very slow decay rate (due to anoxic conditions) and fine grained sedimentation preserved the impressions of soft tissues. Ex-YEC Glen Morton has an informative page about the formation here

So please explain where in the coelacanth story or in the Green River Formation there is any fraud of any kind. How does the discovery of a member of a thought-to-be-extinct subclass of fish (especially one that confirmed many speculations about early lobe-fin adaptations while suggesting others were incorrect) topple even a sub-set of evolutionary thought? If as important as your source claimed these were I would expect to hear of at least one evolutionary ichthyologist whose worldview was crushed that fateful day in 1938.

Edited by Lithodid-Man, : Added Okapi information (paragraph 2)


Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Archangel, posted 09-23-2009 9:27 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1126 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 312 of 323 (526886)
09-29-2009 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by Archangel
09-29-2009 8:26 AM


Importance of Orce man
Arch-

Before we (hopefully!) put Orce Man to rest, I wanted to mention something important about this find. I could be misunderstanding you (or your sources, but the following:

Arch writes:

Posts 277 and 278 made clear that if evolution science had any confidence in it as true evidence, it would be front and center in their lineup of transitional fossil evidence since it evidently comes from such a sparsely represented era of the so called evolutionary journey.

Makes me think that you have inflated belief in the significance of this find to evolutionary biology. If validated, the significance of the find is that an early wave of hominids settled Western Europe earlier than than the confirmed dates (780 kya, iirc). In terms of intermediates, the find is not very important at all. We already know that Homo erectus (using the term as an organizational grade more than as a taxon) spread out from Africa at or around this time.

The point is that the ~1.6 my period is not devoid of hominids. What was happening in Spain at that time, while interesting, is likely to be more of a side note. The real 'movers and shakers' in the human story were in Africa at this time (although it seems likely that wave after wave migrated out of Africa to spread far and wide).

I thought this might help your understanding of the Orce issue better. When I read Gish and other creationist descriptions or Orce I see that it is implied that somehow Orce represents some crucial link in human evolution, which is certainly untrue.

Edited by Lithodid-Man, : added 'be' to 'to be more of a side..."


Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Archangel, posted 09-29-2009 8:26 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019