The nail in the Evolutionary Coffin, the final spike placed there by the Royal Society itself.

reply to post by galadofwarthethird


Your claim that Darwinism had to be accepted in 1859 is hogwash. His theory of evolution was heartily challenged. Changes were made to address issues where Darwin's theory was incorrect. That is the way science works. There are those that falsely claim there is some sort of toeing the line amongst scientists. That is a fairy tale concocted by those attempting to con the gullible. Science is all about challenging and testing ideas.

reply to post by pikestaff


Check the reports. Here are links showing that the material was misrepresented by the OP. The footprints are in tuff. Look it up.

www.usatoday.com...
news.nationalgeographic.com...
www.archaeologydaily.com...

Originally posted by Rocketman7

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Rocketman7

 

You really think facial recognition is proof against evolution. If anything it is proof for evolution. Facial recognition among humans requires a large portion of the brain. Why do you expect such resources to be wasted on recognizing the faces of other animals when it has impact on human reproduction?

As for the claims regarding software. We have spent decades and millions, if not billions, of dollars trying to create software that can recognize human faces. Even then the software is not perfect. Why do expect facial recognition software designed to recognize faces of other species, a field that is in its extreme infancy, to be as well developed as human facial recognition software?

The question was how does the theory of evolution explain the fact that humans all have distinct different faces when no other animal has that characteristic.

Frank Borman: - "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good."

If we are descended from apes, then explain how we ended up with distinct identifiable individual faces, and they did not. And why not.

The only way your point will be proved is if they make a software to explore your theory that animals don't have facial distinctions. Your argument seems to be that because man made this software to spy on man that its premise can be unique only to man and that is just plain incorrect.
Oh and did you know:
Cats do not communicate with each other through vocal response? They communicate with eye/facial expressions! They don't mew to each other and are almost non vocal unless in heat or communicating with humans. It is believed the meow, which is done generally by kittens, is a carryover to get a human's attention and to get us to respond in a positive way to them.
Link here.
You know, if you did just a tad of research including any side of this argument and not just your opinion, I'm sure you would have seen some of these facts and rebuttals. It's really easy to do.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by galadofwarthethird

 

Your claim that Darwinism had to be accepted in 1859 is hogwash. His theory of evolution was heartily challenged. Changes were made to address issues where Darwin's theory was incorrect. That is the way science works. There are those that falsely claim there is some sort of toeing the line amongst scientists. That is a fairy tale concocted by those attempting to con the gullible. Science is all about challenging and testing ideas.

Also the famous Scopes trial proves your point here stereologist. Scopes outcome.
Scopes lost, was booted for teaching evolution and had to pay fines. So Darwinism was challenged, even in the courts. Also to point out - these laws were immediately ignored (they are still on the books though) after Sputnik went up. Then Americans needed to prove they were smarter than the Russians and creationism went out the window. That was almost a 40 year gap from judgement to change in attitudes in America.

Since the OP was too chicken to post this Peru skull thingy I will do that for them.

Instead of posting the damning info upfront lets post this as a fraud would post it by posting all of the baloney first.

www.newsoxy.com...

Riquelme has claimed that the eye cavities indicate that the skull could not belong to a human as it is far bigger than anything previously seen in regular human skulls.

Anthropologists from across the globe have now been sent to the museum in Peru to investigate the find.

See that. I went to a bogus site and I cherrypicked a few lines. That is how frauds are committed.

Lets find some more

I dont see how this remotely disproves evolution...in fact it SUPPORTS it !
Its the classic Graham Hancock arguement, there is a lost (suppressed?) chapter of the human story, we HAVE evolved to an "intelligent" stage before and whether throught a natural disaster, or own own stupidity have taken a huge step backward.
You are against evolution, but, surely if there was (and theres a phenomenal amount of evidence supporting it) a previous advanced civilization thats now gone (unfortunately from the history books too), and we have "replaced" it,and, we manage to cope with our own natural disasters or learn to stop being so destructive (to ourselves as well as the planet...LMFAO mega fail with that) then we....HAVE EVOLVED !
...if not hit the restart button, let our civilization be forgotten (future societies will grimace at how badly this chapter of humanity did).... if they ever discover we existed.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Notice that I did not mention fontanelle so far. That is key here since we want to be fraudulent in our claims.

The article has the following title.

Is this an alien skull? Mystery of giant-headed mummy found in Peru

It's a giant headed thingy int he photos. Oh my!

Here is where we learn how big the head is! Oh my gosh!

The strangely shaped head - almost as big as its 50cm (20in) body - has baffled anthropologists.

Please skip over the sentence where it mentions a fontanelle and do not look closely at the photo which shows a fontanelle.

There is a soft spot in the skull - called an open fontanelle - which is a characteristic of children in their first year of life, yet the skull also has two large molars, only found in much older humans.
/quote]

There are lots of dubious places online posting this sort of rubbish.

Now go back to the photos and notice that this skull has 4 large grown up teth in its mouth and yet the fontanelle exists.

Is this a hoax? The clues are right there in front of you to check out.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by squiz

 

The figure is 96%. Here's a trustworthy reference, published in 2011.

It's not so simple for various reasons.

96% when one considers only the current protein-mapping sequences, which represent only 2% of the total genome. However, the actual similarity of the DNA is approximately 70% to 75% when considering the full genome, including the previously presumed "junk DNA," which has now been demonstrated to code for supporting elements in transcription or expression. The 25% difference represents almost 35 million single nucleotide changes and 5 million insertions or deletions.

That's the facts at this point in time.

And yes I actually agree with your other reply on the epigenic changes, DNA is not so simple and there is more to the story. However I've heard claims like selective breeding as proof of the Darwinian mechanism all through this forum. Which cleary this study shows it is not.

Originally posted by blueorder
Don't quite follow, I'm pretty sure non believers are just as likely to destroy and exploit the world (probably moreso as they do not have defined moral guidelines in the same way believers do)- check atheist USSR and the ecological disasters which it created

What a joke. You don't need to blindly believe in an all powerful creator to have empathy.

This thread has been proven 100% false. All three points were wrong, and the OP won't even back half of it up, and even if all 3 points were true, it still has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Anybody who refers to modern evolutionary science as Darwinism (a term that stopped being used in the 1800s, is doing nothing but constructing a false strawman, ignoring all the biological evidence we have since Darwin's time.

1. Animals DO have different faces, it isn't unique to humans. Pictures prove it. Basic research on chimps proves it.

2. The practice of elongating skulls has been done for a long time. Aliens are not necessary to change the shape of a developing baby's head. Many cultures have practiced this.

3. The footprint has been dismissed by scientists as not human, but even if these guys lied completely (which they didn't), homo erectus had the same foot features that modern humans have. Therefor, it very well could have been an ancient hominid ancestor. Your conclusion is absurd. If it was a 50 million year old footprint, you might have a point, but your entire argument is reaching and stretching the truth.

So yeah, game over, close thread or at the very least change the title. I'm so tired of people talking about evolution when not a single thing posted in this thread has anything to do with it.

OP, it sounds like you need a pet and an evolution 101 course.

I'm going to post these free evolution DVDs again. They are free including shipping. You can't go wrong.

www.hhmi.org... - Evolution: Constant change and common threads

www.hhmi.org... - Evolution: Fossils, genes, and mousetraps

www.hhmi.org... - Bones, stones and genes: The evolution of modern humans

www.hhmi.org... - Making of the Fittest

Instead of using the strawman known as Darwinism focus on modern biology. There's really a lot to learn.

OK. Check this link only if you want the truth.

michaelsheiser.com...

The truth is revealed in the second photo of someone looking at this skull and body in the museum.

Please do not look if:
1. You want to pretend to be an Annunaki programmer
2. It will make you spout irrelevant biblical quotes
3. You can't handle the fact that science works
4. You would rather stick with lies
5. You think Sitchin could translate ancient languages

Ugh... these religious posts about science. I think it is funny how science isn't good enough for some folks until it fits their bill, and then they are all "HEY LOOK! IT'S IN NATURE!" Humbug.

Aside from three completely unrelated points as to why the theory of evolution is officially, forever, not to be ever resurrected again, dead... I want to point out your mitochondria and its DNA. We share this with all other eukaryotic life on earth. If we are somehow "special", why would our physiology, mechanics and genetic lineage be so completely intertwined with all life which surrounds us? Why would we be so uncannily like everything else in terms of the building blocks and the genetic markers? Why would we not be completely different from all other life if we were somehow borne of a star or a god or something other than the ape in Africa?

As for the religion that you cite, I want proof of that. I want proof that a god raped a woman on earth, who then gave birth to a wizard. That wizard did some magic tricks, was nailed to some wood and stuck with a spear, died, was put in a cave for three days and then flew away into the sky.

This stuff just makes my head hurt.

reply to post by Afterthought

The Op has proposed a theory. A theory doesn't always have to include references because it is an opinion/idea. It is our job to prove to prove or disprove his/her theory with what we have learned and back it up with proof. Although I appreciate theories that are backed with proof, we can't always expect this with one's belief.

The OP published quotes which need to be tested for accuracy and context. Indeed, one of his quotes was cherry picked to the point of meaninglessness as demonstrated by the follow-up quote and link by Stereologist. The researchers didn't say the 'footprints' were necessarily a million years old, and didn't even say they had conclusively identified the 'marks' as human footprints.

A proposed theory most certainly does have to have the supporting data and methodology to repeat the experiments performed. Your defense of the OP is without any merit what-so-ever.

Whatever happened to the alien skeleton found in Peru? Was there any follow up to that finding or the dna test?

reply to post by squiz

However, the actual similarity of the DNA is approximately 70% to 75% when considering the full genome

New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level

2005 Press Release from the US National Human Genome Research Institute

WASHINGTON, Wed., Aug. 31 - The first comprehensive comparison of the genetic blueprints of humans and chimpanzees shows our closest living relatives share perfect identity with 96 percent of our DNA sequence, an international research consortium reported today...

The consortium found that the chimp and human genomes are very similar and encode very similar proteins. The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence.

At the protein level, 29 percent of genes code for the same amino sequences in chimps and humans. In fact, the typical human protein has accumulated just one unique change since chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.

To put this into perspective, the number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is approximately 60 times less than that seen between human and mouse and about 10 times less than between the mouse and rat.

I should add that I cannot see how the degree of genetic kinship between chimps and humans has any bearing at all on the question whether the theory of evolution is correct or not.

reply to post by Corpsehoagie

OK. Check this link only if you want the truth.

michaelsheiser.com...

The truth is revealed in the second photo of someone looking at this skull and body in the museum.

Please do not look if:
1. You want to pretend to be an Annunaki programmer
2. It will make you spout irrelevant biblical quotes
3. You can't handle the fact that science works
4. You would rather stick with lies
5. You think Sitchin could translate ancient languages

Even if you fell into one of the groups I mentioned you should look at the following link:
michaelsheiser.com...

reply to post by Rocketman7

1. Animals do have individual faces you just have to have more familiarity with their species. The human mind is overwhelmingly pre-programmed to recognize human faces to the degree that we see them when there are none, hence children seeing monsters and boogeymen in shadows. this also makes it exceedingly difficult to recognize the differences in non human faces without a familiarity with the species. I myself was raising mice for a pet store in my teen years and though several of my breeders had exactly the same markings and coloration I learned to distinguish between them by the same things that set us apart; ear size, eye size, eye distance apart, nose size etc. I've also noticed in many nature films that when the biologist follows an animal family for the lifetime of a newborn to the family they become so very familiar with the individuals by their facial appearance and even different body traits. Go watch some episodes of meerkat manor and you'll learn what I mean for yourself.

2. WTF you must have no idea what your talking about the skulls do have Fontanel www.dailymail.co.uk... can't explain the shape but hey elephantitis is so rare we don't have ancient fossils from that but it just happens to exist today. would you say an otherwise apparently human skeleton was alien just for one leg being giant? probably not so why say it just for the skull? Honestly with so many other bones being normal and not unhuman it seems to be a rare deformity any well trained paleontologist would agree.

3. Though I wouldn't rule out the alien experiment idea just because our history throughout many cultures seems to reflect something of that sort I give you the following link to a pic and the acknowledgement that we do in fact have fossils for everyone of these. unmaskingevolution.com...

In closing I say that our evolution is a most definite fact though with so many jumps and large sudden changes I think it perhaps was guided by some other beings. However I don't think we should say experiment as that would suggest they were seeing what would happen. I believe they knew very well what they were doing and wanted to help us get to the evolutionary stage where we would be intelligent and consciously advanced enough to reach a point of ascension on our own. They knew we were headed this way but that the earth would not sustain us long enough to get there if they did not intervene to speed up the process and shorten it by untold millions of years. So instead of saying we were an alien experiment lets say we were evolutionarily assisted by aliens.

If you haven't checked out the link I am reposting here you will learn that the skull is tiny, but big.

The hoax sites have all misreported the size of the skull.

michaelsheiser.com...

reply to post by Rocketman7


The whole gong and bible quoting thing is ridiculous. I would put the time into disproving youre ideas but many others already have sufficiently.

So all i have left to give you is this

Proverb 18:2

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding,
    but only in expressing his opinion.

reply to post by Astyanax


Yes I've read that one. My statement still stands. It says they make very similar proteins in your quote, that's what they are comparing.

96% is based only the known functional protein coding sequences as i said. The 75% figure actually comes from the chimp genome project results.

The chimp genome is actually 10 to 12% larger than human so how can the full genome comparison be 96% similar please explain.