Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by helldiver
Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity


The marsupials of Australia evolved from a common ancestor when Australia split from South America, or more accurately Antarctica. I'm pretty sure this has been proven by DNA analysis of extant Australian and South American marsupials.

Yet again, you use that word "proven" when in fact it's not proven. It is hypothesized and that is fine, but proof? No, it's not proven, in fact there are some very odd things about the marsupials of Australia and an idea of evolving vs. design:

this feature, what did it feed upon before? For me, it takes a great stretch of the imagination to picture the evolution of dolphins and whales. The Duckbill Platypus The explorer who first saw a hide of the duckbill platypus thought that it was composed of the hides of several different animals sewn together as a joke.

Later, when a preserved specimen was brought to him for dissection, he finally declared it outrageous, but genuine! The more you study the duckbill platypus, the more problems you find for evolutionists. Here is a list of some of its features:
1 It is a fur bearing mammal.
2 It lays eggs, yet suckles its young.
3 It has a duck like bill, which has built within it a h eat sensitive worm finding radar.
4 Its tail is flat like a beaver's, yet furry.
5 It has webbed feet in front, clawed feet in the rear.
6 The reproductive systems are uniquely different from the rest of the animal world, but mostly mammalian in nature.

The only other known monotreme, or egg - laying mammal is echidna or spiny anteater. Except for the fact that it lays eggs, it is about as different as you can get from the platypus.

Can you imagine what a pre-platypus might have looked like? Nothing in the fossil record gives us a clue about the origin of this animal, which is an outrage to evolutionists. This animal does very well in its natural environment in spite of its unusual features. To look at it, it would appear that this animal was pieced together from a variety of completely different animals.

Source


You can read about the problems regarding the Koala and while not an Australian issue, the poor pre-woodpecker must have suffered terrible migraines while it learned to hammer into trees. Of course there are no intermediates to point to that did this, but it's fun to imagine the poor suffering woodpecker, rams etc bashing their heads in until the developed the proper body to absorb said shocks. Or the poor lizard/birds trying to fly as their friends warn them not to jump until one day one actually flew!

I also note I did not see a response about Surtsey Island, which I posted about earlier in this thread.

Surtsey Island

Short bit from that article:

Surtsey Island Shouldn't Be! Seventy kilometers south of Iceland a new island was born in 1963. This in itself is not an unusual occurrence. The following year, Sigurdur Thorarinsson (1964), Iceland's foremost geophysicist, wrote a little book about the island. Here is part of h is description of the new island: Only a few months have sufficed for a landscape to be created which is so varied and mature that it is almost beyond belief...Here we see wide sandy beaches and precipitous crags lashed by breakers of the sea.

There are gravel banks and lagoons, impressive cliffs resembling the White Cliffs on the English Channel. There are hollows, glens, and soft undulating land. There are fractures and faulted cliffs, channels and rock debris. There are boulders worn by the surf, some of which are almost round, and further out there is a sandy beach where you can walk at low tide without getting wet.

Dr. Thorarinsson comments as follows, and we must remember that the island is now just
one year old.

An Icelander who has studied geology and geomorphology at foreign universities is later taught by
experience in his own homeland that the time scale he had been trained to attach to geological development
is misleading...What elsewhere may take thousands of years may be accomplished here in one century. All
the same he is amazed whenever he goes to Surtsey, because there the same development may take
a few weeks or even a few days.

It's easy to make up ideas of how this or that happened, but proving it is much more difficult. People assume they see something that is must be very old or that the theory of evolution makes sense to them, but they really don't have proof of it.

edit on 23-8-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)

www.plosbiology.org...

The methods are stats are all there. The DNA analysis proves the link, statistical significance strongly supports the evidence.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Yes all fossils are intermediate. No species ever truly stops evolving. Just because the cockroach or coelacanth may be living fossils doesn't mean that species didn't evolve from it. Just because speciation occurs doesn't mean the previous species suddenly ceases to exist. Here's a hypothetical situation using cockroaches as our example. They are found pretty much all over the world. Well let's say the environment for the cockroaches in Brazil suddenly changes and this change causes most of the cockroaches to die. However there are a few that have the mutations to ensure survival. This means we have reached a genetic bottleneck. Now these mutations that ensure survival will be passed on along with others that may have been rarer in the previous cockroach population. So what we're left with are cockroaches that can survive in this environment but we may also see a new species emerge. Just because we have a new species doesn't mean that cockroaches stopped existing at all in Brazil and it certainly doesn't mean that cockroaches stopped existing everywhere in the world just because the environment changed in Brazil.

Then of course there's also the fact that just because the fossils look like cockroaches doesn't mean that their genetic structure is the same as the cockroaches we have today. It also doesn't mean they would be able to reproduce with modern cockroaches. From the links you provided it seems that you're drawing many of your conclusions from phenotype when what you should really be looking at is genotype.

It's not worth it. He mocks people for not understanding transitional fossils and yet he is the one that doesn't understand evolution. Let this thread die.

Originally posted by gotya
*raises hand*

I have a question.

Why do people who believe in god find it necessary to convince non believers of its existance?

You never hear of people who believe in the theory of evoloution knocking on doors trying to convince the religious folk.

Why the hell do you care what I believe?

Well put.
Could not agree with you more.
I would like to ask for some one to explain the difference in two phrases which I hear a lot.

1. The Bible is the "inspired" word of God, written by men of faith.

2. The theory of evolution is "conjecture" based upon acceptable evidence of the changes in organisms over time.

I am not asking for some ones "belief" in the validity of either. I am interested only in the differences in the two statements.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


You are still arguing based on a key misconception of evolution. It is not linear, it has ups and downs. There is no set path of evolution from one species to another. This means there does not have to be a 50/50 mix of 2 creatures just because they share a common ancestor at some point. You actually posted the crocoduck which is hilarious, because if that thing existed it would completely disprove evolution. We're talking small changes that add up over time, not hybrids of every know species. Intermediary species are not necessary to validate evolution although many have been found.

reply to post by Barcs


Why is it that you all cannot understand we are not talking micro evolution here. There is no proof of inter species evolution. There are ideas, there are clever drawings, but there is no fossil proof. The mutations cause a loss in genetic information, never a gain.

Those fruit flies were all still flies or crawls when the scientists were done zapping them. Darwin's finches were still finches. Show me a lizard slowly over millions of years changing into a bird. You can't, but it sounds good to you so you believe it. You have every right to believe that is how things happened, but you can't say it's truth and proved by science.

reply to post by teamcommander


Do you not realize they don't have to go knocking on doors? They hold our kids prisoner for 8 hours a day while they pump them full of crap that is not proven and openly ridicule creation, especially on college campuses.

This whole "Religion" is crap idea is fine, you don't have to believe it. You don't even have to be taught it. Most people though do have to sit through public school indoctrination.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

Do you not realize they don't have to go knocking on doors? They hold our kids prisoner for 8 hours a day while they pump them full of crap that is not proven and openly ridicule creation, especially on college campuses.

Are we substituting unfounded claims for logic and rational discourse these days? My, ATS, how you have fallen!

This whole "Religion" is crap idea is fine, you don't have to believe it. You don't even have to be taught it. Most people though do have to sit through public school indoctrination.

Then go public. If you have the gonads, go public with your convictions and see how fast you get shut down by professionals. You know, people who are paid to get their facts straight, unlike armchair buffs like yourself. It really is the most surefire way of testing your theories.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


So you're just going to ignore that insertion and duplication are key mutations that anyone who has taken a basic biology course would know about? Both of these add base pairs to an individual's DNA.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by teamcommander

 

Do you not realize they don't have to go knocking on doors? They hold our kids prisoner for 8 hours a day while they pump them full of crap that is not proven and openly ridicule creation, especially on college campuses.

This whole "Religion" is crap idea is fine, you don't have to believe it. You don't even have to be taught it. Most people though do have to sit through public school indoctrination.

I know I can be a little dense (understatement).
I do not understand how your response is connected to the phrases about which I am asking for clairification.
Would you be so kind as to possibly read my response again and give me some reply in conjunction to it?

reply to post by teamcommander


Yes please do, and respond to the marsupial common ancestor paper I posted.

reply to post by teamcommander


Eh, sorry Tc, I was responding to the comment you responded to. Sorry for the confusion.

reply to post by helldiver


I already have several times. That whole marsupial thing actually does more harm to the theory of evolution than help it.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Well apparently that answers my question. Yes he is just going to ignore, again, that insertion and duplication occur and add information to DNA. I'm actually interested in his explanation for Down's Syndrome. I mean it's impossible for things to be added to DNA so that third 21st chromosome can't exist since it's impossible to add to one's DNA.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by helldiver

 

I already have several times. That whole marsupial thing actually does more harm to the theory of evolution than help it.

No you have not responded to it at all but please do and please explain why it harms evolution. You've made it clear that evolution is fabricated so here's your chance. Its a credible peer reviewed source and the results are out there, free to be tested and challenged.

I think at this point I would like to say that your understanding of what you arguing is seriously questionable. A valid response to the paper I provided you with is critical to your argument.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


I can answer that on behalf of Unified Senility:

"Aye, but where's the intermediate fossil?!"

Originally posted by helldiver
reply to post by Xcalibur254

 

I can answer that on behalf of Unified Senility:

"Aye, but where's the intermediate fossil?!"

No, wouldn't do it either. Surely there would need to be another intermediate between the original and that intermediate!

No way around it, science. Find the crocoduck or submit!

This post goes to everyone in general, I can't seem to get my post through in any other way. The easiest way to debunk this theory is to ask any one of these modern scientist to explain the evolution of the eye. Darwin and Haeckel wasn't around when the first "eye" had "seen". Can these pseudo provide proof of the first eyes? They can't, their "facts" are based entirely on historical "evidence" which doesn't exactly point to the truth, my friends, the truth is this, in order to have a machine, you need a machinist. Nature and the universe itself operates like a "machine", carrying out operations. It is clear my friends, that Darwin is incapable of creating his own eyes, if it takes "intelligence" for scientists to create an atom bomb, how much more intelligence is needed to create an atom? Of this scientists are completely clueless. There are thousands of ways to prove them wrong, not one single scientist can give "life" to a cell, they can create a cell, yes, but who can give life to it? Darwin and his henchmen are as completely clueless about how creation started as they are ignorant about the number of hairs on their heads.

Originally posted by BlackSunApocalypse
This post goes to everyone in general, I can't seem to get my post through in any other way. The easiest way to debunk this theory is to ask any one of these modern scientist to explain the evolution of the eye. Darwin and Haeckel wasn't around when the first "eye" had "seen". Can these pseudo provide proof of the first eyes? They can't, their "facts" are based entirely on historical "evidence" which doesn't exactly point to the truth, my friends, the truth is this, in order to have a machine, you need a machinist. Nature and the universe itself operates like a "machine", carrying out operations. It is clear my friends, that Darwin is incapable of creating his own eyes, if it takes "intelligence" for scientists to create an atom bomb, how much more intelligence is needed to create an atom? Of this scientists are completely clueless. There are thousands of ways to prove them wrong, not one single scientist can give "life" to a cell, they can create a cell, yes, but who can give life to it? Darwin and his henchmen are as completely clueless about how creation started as they are ignorant about the number of hairs on their heads.

Oh dear god, where do I even start...
Ok. The eye is the standard creationist 'But, but, goddidit!!!' fall back position, and it always gets trotted out at some point. Very well. There no such thing as half an eye. There is just a light sensing collection of cells that gets better and better at doing what it does.
Next thing you're going to say is 'If Darwin was so great why didn't he win a Nobel prize for evolution'? Whereupon lips will curl.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Oh dear god, where do I even start...
Ok. The eye is the standard creationist 'But, but, goddidit!!!' fall back position, and it always gets trotted out at some point. Very well. There no such thing as half an eye. There is just a light sensing collection of cells that gets better and better at doing what it does.
Next thing you're going to say is 'If Darwin was so great why didn't he win a Nobel prize for evolution'? Whereupon lips will curl.

edit on 26-8-2013 by AngryCymraeg because: (no reason given)

By your logic the eye should evolve and yet Trilobite has extremely advanced eyes and there is NOTHING in the fossil record showing this slowly progressing evolving eye! In fact, millions of species just showed up during the Cambrian explosion, and Darwin knew this was his Achilles heel in his theory.





Maybe we crazy creationists bring up the eye problem because it does cause evolution to fall flat on it's face!

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


No, you keep bringing it up because you don't understand biology. Or evolution.