Two videos for those who want to know the truth about evolution.

a reply to: Bone75

I know eh...poor Oliver .
At least in Japan they were going to have him have sex with a japanese lady on live TV. (Thankfully it didn't happen).

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: peter vlar

A question for you about Oliver the chimp.
Is it safe to say that his genetic trait which made him walk like a man is evolution?.
If he was given enough mates could a new species be made?.
Oh and great post as usual.
I doubt we will see servant again seeing he has been shown he doesn't read his own links even.

I don't think its an unreasonable assumption or stance to take on Oliver. He walked upright with more frequency than some of the earliest candidates for bipedalism like Ardipithecus Ramidus or the earlier Saehlanthropus Tchadensis, of that there is little question. It would be interesting to see his genome mapped to see if there were any markers typically associated with bipedalism. From what I can remember, the genetic testing done on poor Oliver was pretty low coverage and was primarily done to test the "hybrid" hypothesis that had been circulating since the early 80's but don't quote me on that as I'm going off of memory. One thing that would have been an excellent demonstration of whether or not Oliver was "evolution in real time" would have been if he had mated which, I believe, would have been inevitable had he been left in the wild. I know there were some social issues later in his life but they stemmed more from the fact that he was arthritic and nearly blind from decades of testing, experimentation and shows which made him physically incapable of being around younger and more aggressive chimps when he went into retirement his last few years. He did have a lady friend, I think her name was Raisen, as a companion the last few years of his life so he was able to socialize in some settings and I feel that were he to have led a somewhat more benign life, he would have mated. His offspring would have given us some interesting indicators of what his genetic line had in store and if the bipedalism was a genetic trait that was going to pass itself down. Unfortunately, its one of those things we will always have to wonder about because he didn't end up with the life he deserved and didn't get to enjoy the opportunities he should have. I will have to dig around a little and see what info I can find regarding the genetic tests done on Oliver, what level of coverage they were and if the samples are still stored somewhere because his DNA could hold a lot more answers than what was originally asked of it. I'm glad you brought Oliver into the conversation though so for that, I thank you. I have a tendency to get detail oriented and focused on the minutiae and forget about "big picture" items like Oliver and the importance he had and could possibly still have in evolutionary biology. He should also serve as a cautionary reminder of what happens when we lose sight of our closest genetic relatives and look at them solely as a commodity and NOT the critical evolutionary link to our past they truly are.

Ok, so there are some things this guy in the video do not understand. Then he points to things science can not explain concerning biology and evolution. His conclusion is that it then must be God who created everything. Not just the Christian God, but the Christian God, him and his closest friends believe. A lucky bunch of 0.01% of the world population. And they insist that we must adjust our worldview thereafter, even if it is contrary to all observational science.
Yea, right, we do that, right after we see these 5 hours videos

a reply to: boymonkey74

Why thankfully?.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
No, I don't. We could be classified as primates perhaps, but definitely not apes. Or is your theory flawed?

Why? Because you say so?

en.wikipedia.org...

Humans, chimps, gorillas and others are considered great apes, and are all in the family Hominidae. We are indeed also classified in the order of primates.

You were already incorrect in the former statement, and you're incorrect in this one too. But hey, Stars bro. Who #ing cares about science, right?

So I'm incorrect because you arbitrarily state it as fact without anything to back it up? Dismissing my 2nd statement based on your personal opinion of my first is a fallacy, plus it's false. Read the link I posted. Humans ARE classified as apes.

Really? How many times have those theories changed? Based on how many bones, in which stratta? Do you have a clear connection between homosapiens and concocted monkey men? no? Then why are you pretending other people are so stupid, and you are so intelligent?

Did I strike a nerve or something? You already cursed at me above over an accurate statement I made, and now you are claiming I'm calling people names or insulting their intelligence. I'm merely following the facts and the evidence.

en.wikipedia.org...

evolution.berkeley.edu...

humanorigins.si.edu...

Almost like Lucy. We should just start saying 7 "Hail Lucy"'s instead of hail mary's.

As I demonstrated above, the evolutionary model is not dependent on Lucy. There are 20 other species in between Lucy and modern humans. Take a look at the skulls. Read the links I posted. Don't just take my word for it, look at what the folks who have studied the fossils for decades have determined. They are the only folks that are qualified to make such determinations, unlike the guy in these videos or yourself.

a reply to: rossacus

Look thats why I don't release any of my sexual conquests online...

a reply to: peter vlar

I agree.
We need to give our brother and sisters better rights.
Is it none human rights I forget?.

The more you learn about academia surrounding evolution the more you realize how much bs it is. Those people are so emotionally attached to false ideas there's no possible way to talk to them, especially when careers are at stake. And that same corruption goes into science, medical, and energy fields. Humans can't do anything right Lol.....but really, we can't do anything right.

originally posted by: peter vlar

Enlighten us...how many times have theories been changed based on new fossil finds? Seriously...when was the last time an entire THEORY was altered based on some new find? Faulting science for giving the best information it currently has and updating hypothesis and postulations based on new research and data while dwelling on anachronistic worldviews from the bronze age, ranting about science and simultaneously failing to demonstrate your point WITH science is rather interesting from a research point of view. It's not next level crazy like taking forensic anthropology advice from the guy who put braces on my niece but this early in the day I'm not terribly picky. But if you would like to provide specific examples I would be happy to explain them to you. See, unlike Orthodontist Cuozzo or any other dissenters in this thread, I actually have a degree in Anthropology and I did my graduate work specifically on Neanderthals. I can tell you from a professional point of view, Cuozzo has his head so far up Jesus' bum that no number of Hail Mary's or Hail Lucy's are going to get him back to the light of day or reality when it comes to this topic and you are so sorely misled on the truth of biological sciences and anthropological definitions and classifications that I'm not sure why I'm even looking the horse in the mouth other than the fact that for years, this is what I did...tried to teach people the truth. You can't sit here and say you've looked in depoth at both sides of the issue and come out believing that science is all faulty. There are far too many dominos in this chain for that postulation to ever work out properly in the end.

I don't think I've ever read a better rebuttal on ATS.

a reply to: Flesh699

Oh yes. Please do tell us what research YOU'VE done into the academia surrounding evolution. I'd like to know who you've found to be less than credible, evidence of wide spread corruption. Oh yeah and also explain to me how the majority of scientists the world over would all be in on a massive conspiracy to push evolution as a real theory when its not.

originally posted by: Flesh699
The more you learn about academia surrounding religion the more you realize how much bs it is. Those people are so emotionally attached to false ideas there's no possible way to talk to them, especially when careers are at stake. And that same corruption goes into educational and political fields. Humans can't do anything right Lol.....but really, we can't do anything right.

Changed to reflect irony.

a reply to: peter vlar

I just want to say a hearty "thank you" for your excellent responses.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Deep down we all wanted to be the ones who started aids

a reply to: rossacus
Sort of like marrying a cousin

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
Atheists like to use "creationist" as a one size fits all term

It goes both ways, champ

originally posted by: DeadSeraphThe Cambrian Explosion is thought to have occurred over 20 million years (40 being a very liberal estimate). Prior to the Cambrian we have a lack of fossils which depict later organisms. During the Cambrian record, we see the blueprints for subsequent species explode in number, and after it we see the results. The discrepancy lies in the fossil record itself. How can so many new species suddenly arrive in the fossil record, almost on their own, with very little time (relatively) to have evolved so many variations?

Soft-bodied organisms do not, generally, preserve as well as hard-bodied organisms. The are many possibilities for "so many new species" appearing over a relatively short time, including climatic, tectonic and biological.
The development of a 'bauplan' and its acquisition has been dealt with in depth by the late, great Adolf Seilacher (Dolf to his mates. I have a plaster cast from when I broke my wrist, signed by him, picture to come some time when I dig it out) and I highly recommend following up his information. His work on the Ediacaran fauna is excellent.

Ediacara .pdf

originally posted by: peter vlar
rectum.

I would say that your argument(s) damn near killed him!

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Not to beat a dead horse, and I really tend to agree with you as that's the logical answer, but reading Sanderson, he was quite specific and puzzled and so was Huevelman... they had bio backgrounds and said the thing in the ice wasn't the same dummy that was there later.

I wasn't there and have no real input, other than to say Sanderson liked a good yarn and stretched his conjectures... but wasn't a bold-faced liar... and his description of the being and the gunshot wound, viscera, etc. along with the smell of decay, was vivid and backed up... so I remain uncommitted to the Minnesota Iceman final verdict of hoax from the first... despite that being the best answer.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: boymonkey74

I don't think I've been shown up 90% of these people refused to even hear the man out, and are just shouting BS because I attacked their faith.

I've noticed that the first sign of impending BS is the posting of a video.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: DeadSeraph

There is a distinct lack of fossil evidence to prove that men evolved from monkeys.

A common ancestor with apes isn't it?

Which ancestor would that be? Where is the fossil evidence demonstrating the transition from that ancestor to homosapiens? I've looked it over, and it really isn't all that compelling.

"Lucy" has to be one of the most ridiculous examples I've seen.

How do you get from this:

to this?

To say some "artistic license" was taken, would be an understatement.

Not nearly as much artistic license as those illustrations of Jesus and of the infamous creature-filled ark.

So does everyone here now know the truth about evolution?