Do 6 Out of 10 Americans Really Not Believe In Evolution?, page 14

reply to post by DASFEX

---

Part 2

...according to Kimura, adaptive evolution is visible to natural selection while simultaneously molecular evolution is invisible to natural selection. Is such a position logical? No. Is it politically and intellectually expedient? Absolutely

Again, nonsense. Kimura does not say that, he says that many molecular changes are 'near-neutral' with respect to selection fitness. Andreas Wagner has reconciled the two positions by showing that the large genetic diversity built up by these near-neutral molecular changes provide a large variety of adaptions to draw from during evolutionary crisis.

Unanswered Questions
Here are four common questions asked about the Theory of Darwinian Evolution

All of these questions and many more have been answered, ad naueseum. Here is a good place to start: An Index to Creationist Claims

I'll give a short response here for each, but you should refer to the above URL for detailedl answers.

1) How does random change (mutation) in the genome add information to a genome to create progressively more complicated organisms? It Doesn't.

Information theory shows that random change introduces maximum information into the genome. Natural selection filters out the useful from the non-useful. See CB102

2) How is evolution able to bring about drastic changes so quickly? An example is the Cambrian Explosion.

There are many plausible explanations. One is that much of the pre-Cambrian life was too small or too soft to fossilize. See CC300

3) How could the first living cell arise spontaneously to get evolution started?

This is a difficult question, and has not yet been satisfactorily answered by science. There has been quite a bit of work in this area. See CB010_2 for a brief summary of some of this work.

Notice that this problem has nothing to do with evolution theory.

4) The Human Genome Project showed that only 1-2% of Human DNA codes for proteins, or about 25,000 genes. These are not enough to account for the complexity of the organism. What is the other 98% of the genome's function? We don't know.

This is a valid question and work is being performed to answer it. Again, just because it hasn't been answered completely satisfactorily doesn't mean it won't be.

Here is an abstract of one proposed answer: The relationship between non-protein-coding DNA and eukaryotic complexity

See also CB130 for related information.

Falsifiability
Karl Popper raised the point that for a theory to be science, it has to be falsifiable. We have no method to falsify the theory of Darwinian
Evolution suggesting that it is a belief rather than science.

There are many holes in Karl Popper's work, he has many critics. Never-the-less, if you want to apply this test to evolution, you must also also apply it to so-called "Creation Science" which fails the test on every detail.

Furthermore see 29 Evidences for Macroevolution (which you seem to be at great pains to deny) for an exhaustive list of various questions and their possible falsifications.

Ill go one further than Popper regarding Darwinian evolution.

It's a religion, a cult, the apostate church, the great whore and the biggest hoax perpetrated in the history of man and it needs to stop.

Don't hold back. Tell us what you really think.

After I read this on the link it offers to explain evolution theory I said forget it. These idiots at that site are hoplessly lost in their own dimwitted darwinian delusion
My comments are in bold parenthesis

A good theory can also be used to produce predictions about future observations based on the known facts and evidence. A theory should also be falsifiable - this means that it should be possible to think of an experiment that would prove the theory wrong if it is not sound. One of the big problems with creationist hypotheses is that they are not open to refutation - any possible set of evidence can be explained away with some variation on "God did it, for Mysterious Reasons". (The ONLY scientists who have ever said this are evolutionists claiming this is what creationists say. To date I have never seen any creation scientist quoted using such an answer)

Theories are often used to explain "laws". The Law Of Gravity is fairly obvious - drop an apple and it will fall onto the head of any scientists sitting below. Slightly more precisely, objects are attracted to each other by the force of gravity. The theory of gravitation attempts to explain the law of gravity in detail; how it works, and what causes it. The theory of evolution, likewise, attempts to describe and explain the observed fact of evolution. Evolution happens. It can be seen, measured and experimented with. The theory of evolution describes the facts of evolution. Even if the theory of evolution turns out to be completely wrong, that won't alter the fact that evolution still actually happens ( ha ha we figured that out long ago after we debunked it and the yare still coming out with more just so story) - we'll just need a better explanation one which will not only explain everything that the theory of evolution did, but it would also have to explain why the theory of evolution worked so well for so long. (note: there is no fact of gravity mentioned because gravity is not threatend by creationists saying it is only a theory or only a law)


One of the problems with developing evolutionary theory is that large changes happen over a very long period of time. ( assumes large scale changes happening is true) Small-scale evolutionary changes can be done today ( no one has said it doesn't yet this is implied later) - dog-breeding, myxamatosis-resistant rabbits in Australia, the Goatsbeard flower in America, fruit-flies in laboratories,( for many years they have bombarded fruit flys with radiation and all they have ever produced is mutant fruit flys. We have seen the aborted fetus's of babies born after hiroshima and know whether fruit flys or human fetus, is proved nothing to support new species of either one and is a failure using it in this example) antibiotic resistant bacteria. Evolution is happening, and to deny that is foolish.( so many comments as disclaimers making accusations, preumptuous statements of our denial calling us fools merely challenging this theory is assumed one is a fool. what the hell do they think it is a religion?To say "It's only a theory, so it doesn't mean anything." is also foolish. (It doesn't mean anything so why do evolutionist's seem so threatened when we say its just a theory? if it were more than a theory, than why don't they call it what more than a theory is?) It is a theory supported by overwhelming, freely available evidence, ( and all of it is given by a science where one must assume evolution is true or be black listed as a creationist) with just a few details to iron out. I think many creationists realise this, which is why they are trying to demolish the theory by ridicule and misinformation if you came here thinking it's "just a theory, just a wild guess" then you have fallen victim to their campaign or prevent it from being taught in schools. (Creationist are not the ones saying it shouldn't be taught, it is evolutionist's that pull that crap on creationist's) If they are so sure it is wrong, all they have to do is disprove it by normal, rational, scientific means. ( we have and evolution can't stand up to the scientific method tripping over the logical fallacy of assuming the consequent every single time) They're not having much luck so far, (no we are not but it isn't because we have failed disproving it. We have to have something to disprove first.) which is why they rely on misrepresentation of the facts. (there are no facts to disprove) www.abarnett.demon.co.uk...

interesting atheism is in that url just another religion masquerading as science.

Here is another

Creation, Creationism and the Evolution of Evolved ThinkingDNA evidence further points out evolutionary predictions with the ... That's right, while there are mutations that do not benefit the species .... Evolution doesn't give fish lungs all at once as Creationist want you to believe.

We NEVER said they give fish lungs all at once, we say it never happens at all. There are thousands of sites that put words in our mouths all the while they accuse a religion of not being a science and using dis-information while not seeing the monumental hypocrisy in this BS

The lung fish?
The bladder was discovered to be an organ used for balast not breathing just like tiktaalak

Because Darwinism is irrelevant to modern medicine, Darwinists have to use sleight of hand propaganda to justify Darwinism’s relevance to modern medicine. (see: Blythian evolution explains antibiotic resistance, not Darwinism

[edit on 11-7-2009 by DASFEX]

$1000 Reward for finding an evolutionist that completes a Life Science Prize Mini-Trial.

$1000 Omniscient Originality Prize for two or more living things that are identical. It is predicted that this prize also will go unclaimed indefinitely because there is no such thing as a homologue, or an evolution sequence, or micro-evolution, or macro-evolution, or mosaic characteristics, or a common ancestor, by reason of the fact that all living things are devolving, dynamically engineered, unique inventions of omniscient originality. See Biology for the 21st Century and the Life Science Prize Tested Devolution, Evolution, and Genesis, 2005, p. 16. (Originality Prize offered on 3-18-07.)

"Default-judgment. Judgment entered against a party who has failed to defend against a claim that has been brought by another party." -Black's Law Dictionary.

For years, the claim has been made that evolution is an inverted-fantasy religion taught in the public schools in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. The Debate Dodgers (see below) unanimously have failed to defend in court against that claim. Therefore, the default-judgment applies to all evolutionists in general and particularly those on the Debate Dodgers List. This is proof positive that evolution is an inverted-fantasy religion taught in the public schools in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Evidently, evolution is devoid of scientific evidence. As an acid test of that finding, the most outspoken evolutionists worldwide bar none were challenged to contend for the Life Science Prize. The rules and results follow. These data confirm the scientific peer reviewed articles of objective, valid, reliable, and calibrated evidence that evolution exists nowhere in the universe, never has, never will, except as an inverted fantasy based on vitalism superstitions 2,500 years old.

Rules for the Life Science Prize Mini-Trial

1. The evolutionist puts $10,000 in escrow with the judge.

2. The creationist, Joseph Mastropaolo, puts $10,000 in escrow with the judge.

3. If the evolutionist proves evolution is science and creation is religion, then the evolutionist is awarded the $20,000.

4. If the creationist proves creation is science and evolution is religion, then the creationist is awarded the $20,000.

5. Evidence must be scientific, that is, objective, valid, reliable and calibrated.

6. The preponderance of evidence prevails.

7. At the end of the trial, the judge hands the prevailing party both checks.

8. The judge is a superior court judge.

9. The venue is a courthouse.

10. Court costs will be paid by the prevailing party.

Default Judgment (Debate Dodgers) List as of March 2009

A default-judgment debate dodger is a creation, devolution, intelligent design, or religion basher who declines to contend with scientific evidence. To date, those evolutionists individually and by organization invited to contend are more than 363,000, and none will contend because they have no scientific evidence to support their insulting public statements. For modern times, they are premier examples of anti-scientists because of all their so-called evidence is either superstitions (12%), frauds (74%), or forgeries (14%).

1. The evolutionist puts $10,000 in escrow with the judge.

Note. For five years, as these lists testify to more than 363,000 contacts worldwide individually and by organization, Mr. Priest and Dr. Mastropaolo have diligently sought scientific evidence of evolution. We have offered $10,000 to any evolutionist champion willing to collect it over and over again with the Life Science Prize protocol. All of those efforts worldwide bar none with outspoken individuals and organizations have been in vain. The undisputed conclusion is that there is absolutely no scientific evidence in support of evolution because it is an inverted-fantasy religion based on vitalism superstitions 2,500 years old, the exact opposite of reality, taught by frauds, forgeries, brass, bluff, and totalitarian censorship in the public schools in violation of state Education Codes and the First Amendment of that fundamental law of the land, the Constitution of the United States of America.

We have done our best by offering unlimited $10,000 awards and $1000 rewards to have a Life Science Prize mini-trial, but the evolutionists consistently default because they have no evidence. Therefore, by summary judgment after hundreds of unanimous default judgments, creation and devolution are declared undisputed biological science, and evolution is, has been, and always will be a pagan, superstitious, inverted-fantasy vitalism religion. If anyone on or off the above lists disputes those facts, please contact Mr. Karl Priest at kcpriest@aol.com or Dr. Mastropaolo at jmastropaolo@socal.rr.com or (714) 843-6387 for a Life Science Prize min-trial (see rules and alternative rules above). A remaining next step is litigation to replace the evolution scourge from the public schools with the secular truth of devolution, the exact opposite and excluder of evolution.

Conclusion

All of these experiences confirm that evolution is the inverted fantasy based on the ancient Greek vitalism religion of 2,500 years ago that was disproven by the experiments, never overturned, of Dr. Francesco Redi in 1668.

Evolution has been defeated in 4.6 years (from March 11, 2002 to October 11, 2006) by the Life Science Prize mini-trial protocol [1. request reprints of the objective scientific evidence that supports evolution (every scientist is obliged to send reprints), 2. when no reprints are forthcoming, send the Life Science Prize mini-trial challenge to elicit the evidence for $10,000, 3. place the evolutionists on the default judgment list when they default on the Prize challenge, which they are bound to do because evolution is an inverted-fantasy, superstitious, vitalism religion based on the ignorance current prior to Dr. Francesco Redi’s experiments of 1668.

More than 363,000 evolutionists, by individual or organization invitation, cannot be coaxed to reveal their scientific evidence even for $10,000 on a continuing basis. That acid test, confirmed in Topeka in May 5-7, 2005 and in Brussels on October 11, 2006, proved beyond any doubt that evolution is devoid of objective scientific evidence. It dominates biology instruction by frauds, forgeries, superstitions, brass, bluff, and totalitarian censorship.

www.josephmastropaolo.com...

[edit on 11-7-2009 by DASFEX]

reply to post by DASFEX

---

I HAVE GIVEN YOU A PLETHORA OF FRAUD

I find references to exactly one fraud in your posts in this thread, the Piltdown Man Hoax. Please remind me of the other members of the 'plethora'.

I know you find this one example damning of the entire Theory of Evolution and scientists in general. The fact remains that many scientists in Europe and America doubted Piltdown Man from the beginning, and the hoax was discovered precisely because it didn't fit with other findings and predictions of the theory.

Proven the defacto modus operandi of evolutionary scientists is a science that has been working on top of so many hoax's so much fudged data, fragged an freaked fossils, ambiguous definitions of terms even THEY are saying need to be cleared up so even they know which evolution each one of them is talking about.

You have given your opinions, true. However, you haven't proved any such thing, because it simply isn't true. And specialist jargon undergoes change all the time.

I have shown you DNA doesn't work that way

DNA doesn't work? I beg your pardon? What are you talking about?

and that Natural Selection works best when explained by the man who first wrote about it, Creationist Lord Blythe. As BIG a deal as atheists make of Darwin and his theory, Modern Science is saying get REAL!

You really should do some research of your own before making a fool of yourself. The man you are speaking of is Edward Blyth (no 'e') and he was not a Lord.
"Natural selection" was not an idea invented by Darwin, it was common among biologists of the day. Of course Blyth's published views on natural selection are not strictly Darwinian. Darwin didn't publish before Blyth, and the topic was new and still being debated (as it is to this day).
Blyth was a not only a contempory of Darwin, he was a strong friend. He and Darwin discussed ideas that were eventually published in "Origen of Species". Blyth and Darwin continued to correspond and Blyth was a supporter of Darwinian Evolution.
Darwin's wasn't the first word on Natural Selection, but then neither was Blyth's. Furthermore Darwin is not the last word by a long shot.

[/One of New York’s foremost brain surgeons, Dr. Michael Egnor, has repeatedly pointed out why Darwinism is irrelevant to modern medicine. See: Why would I want my doctor to have studied evolution?.

Not a particularly good choice as a subject matter expert. He isn't a scientist and his views are based on the work of Michael Denton, who has repudiated his own work. I wouldn't want Dr. Egnor anywhere near my children or my brain if he can't see the importance of evolution to him in his everyday work in the hospital.

And it turns out, Michael Egnor’s claims are being supported by an uncomfortable admission by Catriona J. MacCallum, the Senior Editor at PLoS Biology....

You are fraudulently misrepresenting Dr. MacCallum's article. She is complaining that evolution doesn't have enough prominence in the medical curicula. Rather than supporting his claims, she is repudiating them.

One-third of the engineers at MIT now work on biological problems...

And this is related to Intelligent Design/Creationism how? Man/Machine interfaces are hot topics in engineering, rehabilitation, warfare, and lots more. Nothing to do with Intelligent Design/Creationism. In fact, some of that work is specifically applying the lessons of evolution to machine self repair, for example for satellites or planetary exploration vehicles. There is no comfort for creationists here.


[edit on 11/7/2009 by rnaa]

Originally posted by DASFEX
$1000 Reward for finding an evolutionist that completes a Life Science Prize Mini-Trial.

Waste of time.

Science isn't done this way and scientists have no interest in giving this Mastropaolo guy or any other creationist the publicity and acknowledgment.

See CA343

The money would be better spent as a prize offering to the first paper that disproves evolution published in a recognized scientific journal of record. Assuming such a proof passed due diligence it would have publishers falling over themselves to be the first to publish it.

Part one

DASFEX comments in bold; my counter comments in BLUE

Originally posted by DASFEX
... - any possible set of evidence can be explained away with some variation on "God did it, for Mysterious Reasons". (The ONLY scientists who have ever said this are evolutionists claiming this is what creationists say. To date I have never seen any creation scientist quoted using such an answer)
[color=Blue]the site Answers in Genesis says exactly that on this page That page also makes an incorrect assumption that evolutionary science proceeds from an athiest presupposition. Darwin, for one, did no such thing, and neither do I (but I'm not a scientist so I don't count anyway).[/color]


...Even if the theory of evolution turns out to be completely wrong, that won't alter the fact that evolution still actually happens ( ha ha we figured that out long ago after we debunked it and the yare still coming out with more just so story)
sorry, what did you debunk? If you figured out that evolution is a fact why do you continue to argue against it? Make up your mind.

... (note: there is no fact of gravity mentioned because gravity is not threatend by creationists saying it is only a theory or only a law)
different disciplines, different jargon, the author is not arguing that creationists are attacking either gravity or the theory of gravity

One of the problems with developing evolutionary theory is that large changes happen over a very long period of time. ( assumes large scale changes happening is true) no assumption is being made - large scale changes are observed Small-scale evolutionary changes can be done today ( no one has said it doesn't yet this is implied later)you are just about to start saying it just a few words from now - dog-breeding, myxamatosis-resistant rabbits in Australia, the Goatsbeard flower in America, fruit-flies in laboratories,( for many years they have bombarded fruit flys with radiation and all they have ever produced is mutant fruit flys. We have seen the aborted fetus's of babies born after hiroshima and know whether fruit flys or human fetus, is proved nothing to support new species of either one and is a failure using it in this example)See I told you you would deny it. Evolution theory does not predict new species under these conditions and you are being mischievous to imply it antibiotic resistant bacteria. Evolution is happening, and to deny that is foolish.( so many comments as disclaimers making accusations, preumptuous statements of our denial calling us fools merely challenging this theory is assumed one is a fool. what the hell do they think it is a religion?No, he is saying evolution is as much a fact as gravity. Ignore such facts at your peril To say "It's only a theory, so it doesn't mean anything." is also foolish. (It doesn't mean anything so why do evolutionist's seem so threatened when we say its just a theory? if it were more than a theory, than why don't they call it what more than a theory is?)[color=Blue]They do say it is more than "just a theory": they say it is a "Scientific Theory"[/color] It is a theory supported by overwhelming, freely available evidence, ( and all of it is given by a science where one must assume evolution is true or be black listed as a creationist) There is no assumption involved. Evolution is a fact. It is the Theory of Evolution that is in question. You seem to have just agreed that you figured out that evolution was a fact (see above).

reply to post by DASFEX

---

Part two

DASFEX comments in bold; my counter comments in BLUE

Originally posted by DASFEX
...I think many creationists realise this, which is why they are trying to demolish the theory by ridicule and misinformation if you came here thinking it's "just a theory, just a wild guess" then you have fallen victim to their campaign or prevent it from being taught in schools. (Creationist are not the ones saying it shouldn't be taught, it is evolutionist's that pull that crap on creationist's)[color=Blue]You almost have a point here, except that various school boards are under siege to have Evolution excised from biology text books (Kansas and Kentucky, 1999). Elsewhere, the Creationist method is to insist that Creationism be taught alongside Evolution Theory as a science, or not at all. Since Creationism is, by definition, not a science; it would mean that the class wouldn't be Science anymore. And just for the record, when I was in school my science classes included alternate world views and the history of science. Biblical Creation, Spontaneous Generation, and the idea of Intelligent Design (before is was called that), and their failings, not as a belief system, but as a scientific theory, were all discussed. And this was 35 to 45 years ago.[/color]
If they are so sure it is wrong, all they have to do is disprove it by normal, rational, scientific means.( we have and evolution can't stand up to the scientific method tripping over the logical fallacy of assuming the consequent every single time)[color=Blue]if that were the case we wouldn't be having this correspondence[/color] They're not having much luck so far, (no we are not but it isn't because we have failed disproving it. We have to have something to disprove first.)make up your mind, are you under the impression you disproved it or not? which is why they rely on misrepresentation of the facts. (there are no facts to disprove)Facts are facts - neither provable or unprovable - they just are. Evolution is fact. Evolution Theory attempts to explain those facts. If you have an alternate theory that is better than the current Evolution Theory, publish it, defend it, and demonstrate how it is better than Evolution Theory.

reply to post by VitalOverdose

---

Exactly my point....

We observe the experience, and try to Back Engineer.

But remember there is The Observed and the Observer.

It is Consciousness, Awareness, meaning Life as in the Life force, that observes. The world can Not observe.

Only Consciousness can observe anything !

But "Back Engineering" always gives you a different story, than what actually happened.

We need to use our Intelligence and Not just observe and Force the things we find to fit our belief system whether religious or of science.

We have to stop pretending and think intelligently.


[edit on 11-7-2009 by The Matrix Traveller]

reply to post by rnaa

---

The creationist you are refering to who said "God did it" is a scientist?

The evolution we have alwats accepted is the kind like getting a suntan or darwits finch beaks, Your 29 proofs of macro evoluton is all micro and a lot of conjecture and in alll cases they assume the consequent.

sorry, no cigar

Originally posted by DASFEX
reply to post by rnaa

---

The creationist you are refering to who said "God did it" is a scientist?

Sorry I don't know what you mean. The creationist I referred you to is certainly an apologist; I don't know whether or not he is, or considers himself, a scientist.

The evolution we have alwats accepted is the kind like getting a suntan or darwits finch beaks, Your 29 proofs of macro evoluton is all micro and a lot of conjecture and in alll cases they assume the consequent.

sorry, no cigar

Your interpretation is incorrect. See CB901

And I don't smoke, thanks.

reply to post by DASFEX

---

Congratulations on your mastery of cut-and-paste. I wonder if you have bothered to research any of these incidents on your own. Google and Wikipedia are your friends.

Please excuse me if I only sample some of the items in your list.

• Piltdown Man
  Already covered. A definite hoax that was revealed because it didn't match the current theory. Notice that no alternate theory proposed by Creationists could have detected the hoax.
  
• Nebraska Man
  A classic case of publishing tentative findings for peer review, further work demonstrated that the tentative findings were wrong, and a published withdrawal. This is how science is done, few scientists accepted it as even a primate and NO ONE, even the original Scientist working on it, Henry Fairfield Osborn, touted it as an evolutionary link between ape and man. The cycle took 5 years from 1922 to 1927. The media hype was huge around the findings in 1922 and totally silent in 1927. Only Creationists keep the (non-)issue alive. (source Wikipedia and Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man)
  
• Java Man
  Dubois didn't downplay anything. His papers were published in widely distributed journals. The Wadjak skulls were NOT found nearby, they were over 100 kms away. Note that "Answers in Genesis" suggests that this is an argument Creationist should NOT use against Evolution Theory. (source Creationist Arguments: Java Man)
  
• Orce Man
  The skull fragment is still under debate, identification has gone from hominid to equine and back again several times. If it is a hominid, it is important because it would be the oldest in Europe. If it is an equine it has no effect on anything, least of all Evolution Theory. (Creationist Arguments: Orce Man)
  
• Neanderthal
  From your post, I don't see what problem you have with Neanderthal. Except of course that our Neanderthal cousins represent an alternate evolutionary branch that is not mentioned in the bible. See Creationist Arguments: Neandertals
  

I'll review some of your other stuff, if I can make it out, later. I gotta go do something useful now.


[edit on 13/7/2009 by rnaa]

reply to post by CrashGecko

---

The use of clothing absolves the need of body hair.

And evolution happens whether you believe it or not.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by PieKeeper]

reply to post by DASFEX

---

Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: “Upgrading Neanderthal Man”, Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)

Sorry, I misread this part before, and I now see what your problem is with Neandertal.

While Neandertal has certainly got a bad press over the years, he was clearly quite intelligent. He made stone tools, clearly had a reverence for his dead which points to a robust mythology including thoughts of an afterlife. This means to me (a complete amateur, so my inference isn't worth much really) that Neanderthal must have had a fairly complex language able to communicate abstract ideas.

But that doesn't make them modern humans with rickets, sorry.

From Creationist Arguments: Neandertals

Amazingly, a century after scientists knew otherwise, most creationists still believe that Neandertals were merely modern humans, deformed by diseases such as rickets, arthritis or syphilis. Some, but by no means all, Neandertals have been found with signs of health problems such as arthritis. But Neandertals have many distinctive features, and there is no reason why these diseases (or any others) would cause many, let alone all, of these features on even one, let alone many, individuals. Modern knowledge and experience also contradicts the idea that disease is a cause of Neandertal features, because these diseases do not cause modern humans to look like Neandertals.

In the 1800's the famous pathologist Rudolf Virchow was one who claimed that the first Neandertal fossil found was of a rickets sufferer. As Trinkaus and Shipman (1992) point out, Virchow, an expert on rickets, should have been the first to realize how ridiculous this diagnosis was. People with rickets are undernourished and calcium-poor, and their bones are so weak that even the weight of the body can cause them to bend. The bones of the first Neandertal, by contrast, were about 50% thicker than those of the average modern human, and clearly belonged to an extraordinarily athletic and muscular individual.

reply to post by DASFEX

---

Miscellaneous Fakes and Frauds

Brontosaurus: One of the best known dinosaurs in books and museums for the past hundred years, brontosaurus never really existed. The dinosaur’s skeleton was found with the head missing. To complete it, a skull found three or four miles away was added. No one knew this for years. The body actually belonged to a species of Diplodocus and the head was from an Apatosaurus. (source: Paul S. Taylor, The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible, [Chariot Victor Publishing, 1989], pp.12-13)

Your source got it completely bas-ackwards wrong. Proof of your unwillingness to think and research for your self.

To scientists, the names Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus are synonyms . Originally Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus were identified as two different animals, later it was realized that the Apatosaurus specimen was just a young Brontosaurus. Since Apatosaurus was identified first, that is the preferred name and Brontosaurus is a synonym for the same animal.

Furthermore, the misidentified head was from Camarasaurus, but the real head is similar in appearance to a Diplodocus, but it is not the same. It was once thought that they must live in a marsh and be quite weak, but it is now realized that they avoided marshes (moving out if the area got too wet), processed food in a gizzard similar to modern birds, and would have plenty of strength to hold its tail up, even to 'stand' to reach high leaves and fight breeding battles.

So what is your point with these kind of complaints? The head was corrected in 1970 - almost 40 years ago. Scientists correct errors when they are found, that is what science is about. Why do continue to voice the same errors even when they are demonstratively false?


[edit on 14/7/2009 by rnaa]

Ex-Vatican Translator, Mauro Biglino\'s Alternative Creation/Translation Theory
  Posted 10 days ago with 40 member flags

EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 17 days ago with 24 member flags

"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 7 days ago with 6 member flags

Evolution. Not a theory, but a fact!
  Posted 19 days ago with 4 member flags

Evolutionary theory: Gaps and not yet understood phenonemon
  Posted 19 days ago with 3 member flags

Radical Theory Explains the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life, Challenges Conventional Wisdom
  Posted 16 days ago with 3 member flags

Please be more specific about which type of creationist you\'re speaking of...
  Posted 16 days ago with 2 member flags

Proof that the pharoes did not build the pyramids, so who did FIND OUT HERE
  Posted 14 days ago with 2 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: