Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TerryDon79

I would genuinely love to see that

Seriously a link would even do

I hope its a link to talk origins, that is always a Fun House, far worse than creationists sites

I wont even bother opening it up

Here's a whole list for you with sources and everything.

LINK

Your link says this, " like how Australopithecus anamensis is most likely to be ancestral to Australopithecus afarensis.[3]"

It's all just guessing. Leaps of faith.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TerryDon79

Lets not forget as I've already said, Fossils are rare occurrences.

And it's amazing good luck to find transitional fossils!

How about that shake up with some dino's that were thought to be different species but were just the young and adolescents of a known species?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Repeating yourself over and over again makes you look a little afraid of answering, detailing evidence

Since this is precisely what you have done since the beginning of the thread, you condemn yourself with your own words.

I have no need to add any more of my own.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TerryDon79

Just a list of animals with NO evidence at all they are transitional

You cant dig up a bone and say its transitional, you have to prove it

Go on and prove it

Please use science, not wikipedia

Remember that thing where you dare someone to change your mind because it amuses you to watch them try and then shoot them down for no reason?

Maybe its time for you to present some viable alternatives instead of waving a red cloth around.

Dp.

You know what pv, I read your posts and think the exact same thing about all your and your comrades posts

I am genuinely stupefied that you can't see , even argue your point

10 questions about the age of the earth

Have at it

a reply to: TzarChasm

Or maybe I am asking for valid evidence

See how I continually use the word evidence

It's not a dare, it's a request

I don't want assumption, tired old theory, I want evidence

Not we guess, we think, we postulate, we create a whole body from a toe rhetoric

EVidence

a reply to: Raggedyman

Define "valid evidence" in your words.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TerryDon79

I would genuinely love to see that

Seriously a link would even do

I hope its a link to talk origins, that is always a Fun House, far worse than creationists sites

I wont even bother opening it up

Here's a whole list for you with sources and everything.

LINK

Your link says this, " like how Australopithecus anamensis is most likely to be ancestral to Australopithecus afarensis.[3]"

It's all just guessing. Leaps of faith.

All science is a guess since it is all up for change provided better evidence is presented. Yet science has managed to produce literally your entire modern life. It must be doing SOMETHING right despite your doubts due to guessing.

originally posted by: Cypress

The Coelacanth's are not identical to the ones from hundreds of millions of years ago.

You know this for certain? Or are you assuming this based on your faith in scientific dogma? Even if your claims are based on more than mere speculation, phenotypic difference are not evidence of evolution. Checkout the phenotypic differences in skulls from the same "species":

Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid

originally posted by: Phantom423
The magic wand of a creator has not shown up in any lab that I'm aware of.

Quantum physics is our best evidence. It demonstrates that consciousness is the basis of everything; matter persists according to consciousness:

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” – Max Planck

God, in John's Logos and Plato's Timaeus, is described as a logical entity (Logos) that creates through its conscious Word of Reason. This, Plato claims, is why we see mathematics as a foundation of nature; solar motions, genetic coding, phi, pi, fractals, etc.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TzarChasm

Or maybe I am asking for valid evidence

See how I continually use the word evidence

It's not a dare, it's a request

I don't want assumption, tired old theory, I want evidence

Not we guess, we think, we postulate, we create a whole body from a toe rhetoric

EVidence

And voila, look at all the links and resources! But you keep dismissing it without refuting it. I think we should all stop playing this game and give you time to either refute our evidence or admit you cant. Anything else is a waste of energy.

Cue the "come and get me" dance.

*lurk mode activated*

a reply to: cooperton


originally posted by: Phantom423
The magic wand of a creator has not shown up in any lab that I'm aware of.

originally posted by: Phantom423 The magic wand of a creator has not shown up in any lab that I'm aware of. Quantum physics is our best evidence. It demonstrates that consciousness is the basis of everything; matter persists according to consciousness: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” – Max Planck God, in John's Logos and Plato's Timaeus, is described as a logical entity (Logos) that creates through its conscious Word of Reason. This, Plato claims, is why we see mathematics as a foundation of nature; solar motions, genetic coding, phi, pi, fractals, etc.

Really? Can you list a few citations for your interpretation of quantum physics? I'd really like to see that.

Thanks

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, you claim to be the scientist, you say I know nothing, I am stupid, I am ignorant, what ever other adhominids you have thrown my way
You define evidence

Then I will agree or disagree

You have patronized me, accused me, spoken down to me, acted superior, been the man.
So you tell me and then I will tear you open

In a loving Christian way, I figure you need a little bit of gentleness




Did you see the pun?

Hey krazyshot

You just love the dance, you can't help yourself, like ghost, haunting, salivating, dreaming, scheming, just wanting to play the game

Hey ghost, well done, i would give you a star, can't, respect

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, you claim to be the scientist, you say I know nothing, I am stupid, I am ignorant, what ever other adhominids you have thrown my way
You define evidence

I didn't claim to be anything. I just asked you to define "valid evidence".

Then I will agree or disagree

You have patronized me, accused me, spoken down to me, acted superior, been the man.
So you tell me and then I will tear you open

In a loving Christian way, I figure you need a little bit of gentleness

Did you see the pun?

I have done none of these things.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Cypress

The Coelacanth's are not identical to the ones from hundreds of millions of years ago.

You know this for certain? Or are you assuming this based on your faith in scientific dogma? Even if your claims are based on more than mere speculation, phenotypic difference are not evidence of evolution.

Perhaps a little research of your own would have addressed this matter. You say Coelacanth as if it's the name of a specific fish when it's actually an order of the clade Sarcopterygii and comprised of many different genus and species. Today, there are 2 living members of this order, Latimeria chalumnae and Latimeria menadoensis. The basis of this is not mere phenotypic presentation. There are differences in internal structure such as a vestigial lung in the 2 surviving members of the Latimeria Genus as well as changes in the number of vertebral arches and substantial differences in skull morphology. The swim bladder of coelacanths has also changed from being filled with oil in the extinct genus Macropoma, to being ossified in modern species, suggesting that the two groups lived in very different environments. Lastly, there are substantial differences in size, with modern coelacanths being three and a half times larger than their closest extinct relative (one and a half vs half a metre).

Casane D, & Laurenti P (2013). Why coelacanths are not ‘living fossils’: a review of molecular and morphological data. BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology, 35 (4), 332-8 PMID: 23382020

Takezaki N, Figueroa F, Zaleska-Rutczynska Z, Takahata N, & Klein J (2004). The phylogenetic relationship of tetrapod, coelacanth, and lungfish revealed by the sequences of forty-four nuclear genes. Molecular biology and evolution, 21 (8), 1512-24 PMID: 15128875

Amemiya CT, Powers TP, Prohaska SJ, Grimwood J, Schmutz J, Dickson M, Miyake T, Schoenborn MA, Myers RM, Ruddle FH, & Stadler PF (2010). Complete HOX cluster characterization of the coelacanth provides further evidence for slow evolution of its genome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107 (8), 3622-7 PMID: 20139301

Checkout the phenotypic differences in skulls from the same "species":

Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid

Hardly an accurate representation with an under represented sample size of 1. All of the craniums depicted in the blog are well within the averages for HSS cranial morphology. All of the internal organs and structures are the same in each of the examples from the blog you linked as well. The differences between the 2 modern members of the Latimeria Genus are far greater than the differences between Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Homo Erectus.

originally posted by: peter vlar

There are differences in internal structure such as a vestigial lung in the 2 surviving members of the Latimeria Genus

No way to tell for sure if the "extinct" coelacanth did not have this same aspect.

as well as changes in the number of vertebral arches and substantial differences in skull morphology.

As demonstrated by the morphologic differences between the negroid caucasoid and mongoloid (all the same "species"), differences in skull morphology do not demonstrate evolution or a different species.

The swim bladder of coelacanths has also changed from being filled with oil in the extinct genus Macropoma, to being ossified in modern species, suggesting that the two groups lived in very different environments.

How could they tell there was an oil filled organ in an "extinct" species? Non-ossified tissue would not be so lucid in fossilized form

Lastly, there are substantial differences in size, with modern coelacanths being three and a half times larger than their closest extinct relative (one and a half vs half a metre).

Proof these smaller extinct relatives were not simply younger coelacanths? Perhaps the conditions thousands of years ago had a higher rate of mortality at younger ages.

The differences between the 2 modern members of the Latimeria Genus are far greater than the differences between Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Homo Erectus.

The average cranial capacity of homo erectus is about 2/3 the "homo sapien sapien". Do you not think this is a significant difference? Not to mention neanderthal cranial capacity is larger than the homo sapien. Who is to say the neanderthal is another sapien skull likened which has differences just like the caucasoid negroid and mongoloid. The semantic game of taxonomy is very ambiguous.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, you claim to be the scientist, you say I know nothing, I am stupid, I am ignorant, what ever other adhominids you have thrown my way
You define evidence

I didn't claim to be anything. I just asked you to define "valid evidence".

Then I will agree or disagree

You have patronized me, accused me, spoken down to me, acted superior, been the man.
So you tell me and then I will tear you open

In a loving Christian way, I figure you need a little bit of gentleness

Did you see the pun? :roll
I have done none of these things.

Oh silly me
Accusations that are not deserved?

Anyway, i put the ball in your court

You second guessing yourself?
Am I someone to fear?

I am just asking for scientific evidence, do you understand science, in fear of it, in fear of justifying it to me, in fear of being exposed

Go get a cookie, or cooky depending where you come from

a reply to: Raggedyman

You still haven't answered my question. Why are you dancing around answering the question so much? I've seen tons of evidence presented in this thread and you've ignored most to all of it. So if that evidence isn't up to snuff, what is? Let's get a baseline on what YOU think valid evidence is. Is that too much to ask?

originally posted by: Phantom423
Really? Can you list a few citations for your interpretation of quantum physics? I'd really like to see that.

Thanks

Consciousness is the foundation of matter. From three nobel-prize winners:

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.” – Max Planck

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. In quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you yet, you don’t understand it well enough.” -Neils Bohr

"Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else." - Erwin Schroedinger