What If...?

[theStudent]

Currently, I am doing what was suggested by some on these forums.
I am researching information both for, and against evolution, and trust me - I am doing so objectively.
While I am still researching, I want to put this out, to hear the different views on it.

During my research I discovered that lately, just over the last decade or so, a lot of informations has been surfacing about fake fossils.
In fact it has now become common place for fossils sold at museums to be checked for genuineness.
I find this interesting.

Why now, is this happening?
Could it be that evidence as it always does, is now surfacing?

For example
Remember the dinosaur hoax - the one that was said to be put together using different bones?
It has recently been found out that it wasn't a hoax after all.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/02/ ... ecies.html

That is quite interesting.

The fossils aren't the only things that were/are claimed to be fake.
There are the drawings, and pictures as well.
Right now, I am going through a very long document considered a case against some of Darwins picture illustrations.
But have you ever come across this one?

Pictures from the past powerfully shape current views of the world. In books, television programs, and websites, new images appear alongside others that have survived from decades ago. Among the most famous are drawings of embryos by the Darwinist Ernst Haeckel in which humans and other vertebrates begin identical, then diverge toward their adult forms. But these icons of evolution are notorious, too: soon after their publication in 1868, a colleague alleged fraud, and Haeckel’s many enemies have repeated the charge ever since. His embryos nevertheless became a textbook staple until, in 1997, a biologist accused him again, and creationist advocates of intelligent design forced his figures out. How could the most controversial pictures in the history of science have become some of the most widely seen?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haec ... eks4-6.jpg
English: The pictures illustrate Ernst Haeckel's biogenetic law. In the beginning embryos of different species look remarkable similar, later different characteristics develop. The images initiated controversies and charges of fraud.

All of this lends to a possibility.
Consdering the fact that fossils can be faked, we must accept the fact that Darwin, and other scientists could have lied.

My question here, isn't whether he did lie or not, but rather, Does this not place evolutionists in the same position as the Christians they claim are believing in fables?

Consider:
Christians accept the Bible, as the word of God.
Here are just a few facts about the Bible.
With estimated total sales of over 5 billion copies, the Bible is widely considered to be the best-selling book of all time.
It has estimated annual sales of 100 million copies.
It has been a major influence on literature and history, especially in the West where the Gutenberg Bible was the first mass-printed book.
It was the first book ever printed using movable type.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

Archaeological findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, also called the Qumran Caves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

The evidence is there however, that the book we hold in our hand today (the Bible), contains information written centuries ago.

Atheist call the book fables - the reason I have yet to find out.
Maybe one of the reasons is that they have not seen God, or seen him write any book - whatever.
So they claim that Christians' belief in them and what they present is blind faith, and belief in stories.

However, is this not the case with those who accept the theory of evolution, where all they have to go by, is what scientists claim to be evidence?

By the way...
No one, to this day have seen them recreate the theories.
Any data they give you on species, is usually what already existed (at least what I have come across so far).
As regards other claims, all we have are pictures, and claimed fossils, which could have been edited.

So evolutionists are really believing what men claim - without any substantial proof of their claim.
How is this different to believing a book?

And what if Darwin, and others lied?


I'm just interested in you different opinions and thoughts, on the above.
Here is a nice short video of someone's opinion. Reasonable too.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to theStudent]

Here is a surprise to me, not to mention, adding to the confusion.

Darwinism is the theory proposed by Charles Darwin. Darwinism explains evolution in terms of over-production, struggle for existence, variations, survival of the fittest and natural selection.

Fossils indicate the relationships between different groups, of organisms. They also help in constructing the story of life's journey on this planet.

How is it that Fossils, is not included in Darwinism?
Is there anyone who would like to explain this?
Although it's not that important to me, but.. more confusion.

Student, the description of Darwinism above is telling you the processes that shape the change in living things over time. "Fossils" are evidence of these changes, they aren't a process that shaped the changes. If they were listing evidences for the changes, they would have included fossils in that list, but that wasn't the purpose of that sentence.

Darwin does talk about fossils in his book by the way. Maybe you should read it instead of pulling a couple of sentences off some website (that you again fail to reference).

I find this a little worrysome to be honest. It appears you don't understand the difference between a process (natural selection) and evidence (fossil). I'm my opinion you should take some time off posting about this topic and educate yourself better about the entire thing. I don't just mean a day or two either, but perhaps a month? I enjoy discussing evolution with people, but a solid knowledge base about the topic is important, and I think you should build yours before we continue this discourse.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 113 by theStudent]

Was there a specific point to post 113? Would you mind terribly if I asked you to state it? I can't figure it out. The only objection you seem to raise is that DuBois seemed "vexed" and "desperate", but since we can't surmise the point of that whole post I have no clue what being "vexed" has to do with anything....

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 113 by theStudent]

Was there a specific point to post 113? Would you mind terribly if I asked you to state it? I can't figure it out. The only objection you seem to raise is that DuBois seemed "vexed" and "desperate", but since we can't surmise the point of that whole post I have no clue what being "vexed" has to do with anything....

The statements are all connected.

1. Instead of suggesting that they wait until more evidence is found to verify his theory, he got vexed. He got vexed.
2. What does that suggest?
3. Well, when someone is determined to find something to support their ideas, they are not interested in verifyable proof - like two or three witnesses. They just want their idea to be accepted as proof.
4. Pity... The poor guy seems desperate.

Simply
If I have a belief system I am trying to establish.
If I find anything that seems to be able to support it.
I will try desperately to hold on to it.
If others challenge it, I would not be interested in whether I had any proof to back it up, but rather, I would argue strongly for what I have, and visibly show my anger toward those who oppose.

I'm suggesting that he was not interested in solid, verifiable proof, rather he was looking for anything that he could use to establish their belief system.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 117 by Bust Nak]

You mentioned above that "when someone is determined to find something to support their ideas, they are not interested in verifiable proof" have you considered that you might have fallen into that trap?

No
I have provided verifiable proof for every thing I stated, that can be proven.
Anything that I could not prove I mentioned why I accepted it.

Go ahead.
Give me one place where I have not done that.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 118 by rikuoamero]

Sure...just ignore the question this raises of how men were able to think beforehand, why don't you.

Exactly!
That what they did.
Ignored the fact that everything was in place when they came and found it.
That man was man, and chimp was chimp, and rabbit was rabbit, and they all came into being as they were, rather than branch from some... some... unknown thing.

Only of course there is the problem of this organ residing in the skulls of every human, including those who don't sleep on the floor, but rather in beds raised from the floor, in very urban environments.

Exactly correct again!
Man. you're sharp.
They ignore the fact that everything is what it is, and if left to themselves, they will continue to be what they are.

I really hope you're joking.

I'm dead serious.
This is no joke, amigo.

Nope, they do experiments to try to establish whether or not it is true. Think about how well lauded Einstein is. Now imagine how famous you could be as a scientist if you could somehow prove something he taught to be true, as actually being wrong. The challenge is there for scientists to prove each other wrong.

Please don't miss my words.

One may say that all science is tested and proven.
To that, I say, there is good and bad in everything.
Truth and false, honestly and dishonesty.
I say, give me the claims, and let me judge for myself if the evidence supports the claim.

Men are men.
All men are not honest in whatever field - including religion.
All scientists are not the same.
There are scientists who believe in creation, as opposed to evolution.
And they give their reason - base on the same exact findings of the scientist, who claim that things came into existence through evolution.

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote:

Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.

—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.

No matter how many times I see something like this, it always makes me laugh. The creationist trying to ridicule away the theory of evolution by saying "Oh, it's just a religion"
without realizing that this also means his own religion has these faults as well
For what rational reason do you reject what you claim to be a religion, but accept the one you have?

We are not trying to

ridicule away the theory of evolution

by arguing against it.
That would mean that it would be fair for you to say the atheists and agnostics are trying to ridicule away the teachings of Christianity, by saying the Christians believe in myths.

Throughout this entire thread I have provided many, many rational reason why I reject the scientific religious, ant-God, theory of evolution.
In other threads, I have provided rational reasons, why I accept the Biblical Christian faith.

And there we have your bias, the reason why you'll say anything against evolution, including up to and including calling science a religion.
It goes against what you already believe.
This is incredibly ironic since just up above you said

I have said what I believe to be the truth.
If I said homosexuality is a sin against God, and you consider that bias - Well, it's a free country - you say what you believe. I say what I believe.

That is YOU, student, in a nutshell.

It was certainly my pleasure - even if you understand, or understand not.

[theStudent]

[Replying to theStudent]


"They have a belief system which influences where they look, and what they look for.
If what they find, is against their beliefs, they reject it, and they make sure they find what supports their beliefs. "

We are forgetting that it might have taken that person 40 years to come to that belief.
During these years you would have done lots of research by different modes of exploration. Still open to hear new ideas but you most likely have heard it all before; if not you'll look at it, take it on or discard it.

I suggest we are all doing exactly the same in our beliefs whatever field they may be.

It can be said of anyone.
I actually know "Christians" who do the said thing.

However, I will say this again.
Men are men.
All men are not honest in whatever field - including religion.
All scientists are not the same.
There are scientists who believe in creation, as opposed to evolution.
And they give their reason - base on the same exact findings of the scientist, who claim that things came into existence through evolution.

They may be honest, they may not.
Who would know?
Who would know if you or I were honest, or not?
I believe there are individuals who would know for certain, but they are not in this realm.

[theStudent]

[Replying to theStudent]

Here is a surprise to me, not to mention, adding to the confusion.

Darwinism is the theory proposed by Charles Darwin. Darwinism explains evolution in terms of over-production, struggle for existence, variations, survival of the fittest and natural selection.

Fossils indicate the relationships between different groups, of organisms. They also help in constructing the story of life's journey on this planet.

How is it that Fossils, is not included in Darwinism?
Is there anyone who would like to explain this?
Although it's not that important to me, but.. more confusion.

Student, the description of Darwinism above is telling you the processes that shape the change in living things over time. "Fossils" are evidence of these changes, they aren't a process that shaped the changes. If they were listing evidences for the changes, they would have included fossils in that list, but that wasn't the purpose of that sentence.

Darwin does talk about fossils in his book by the way. Maybe you should read it instead of pulling a couple of sentences off some website (that you again fail to reference).

I find this a little worrysome to be honest. It appears you don't understand the difference between a process (natural selection) and evidence (fossil). I'm my opinion you should take some time off posting about this topic and educate yourself better about the entire thing. I don't just mean a day or two either, but perhaps a month? I enjoy discussing evolution with people, but a solid knowledge base about the topic is important, and I think you should build yours before we continue this discourse.

Thank you, for your explanation, and your, probably sincere suggestions.
I think I am doing quite well however - for an amateur, and I believe that's evident.

[Kenisaw]

Next up...
Mutations
On that topic... before I start.
Here is an interesting speculation on "java man" and other "javas".
My speculation.
What if... they were all mutants?
Just speculating...LOL.

In order for a mutation to be inherited, it must occur in the genetic material of a sex cell. It is likely that most sex cells contain gene mutations of some sort. It is now thought that the frequency of new mutations in humans is about 1 for every 10,000 genes per generation. If this number is correct, every individual would be expected to have 2-3 mutations on average. Complicating the picture is the fact that mutation rates for different genes and chromosomes apparently vary. Mutations are common occurrences even in healthy people. The majority of them probably do not confer a significant advantage or disadvantage because they are point mutations that occur in non-gene coding regions of DNA molecules. They are relatively neutral in their effect. However, some mutations are extremely serious and can result in death before birth, when an individual is still in the embryonic or early fetal stages of development.

Mutations can occur naturally as a result of occasional errors in DNA replication. They also can be caused by exposure to radiation, alcohol, lead, lithium, organic mercury, and some other chemicals. Viruses and other microorganisms may also be responsible for them. Even some commonly prescribed drugs are thought to be potential mutagens

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... tations_07

Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

Researchers have performed many experiments in this area [directed mutations]. Though results can be interpreted in several ways, none unambiguously support directed mutation. Nevertheless, scientists are still doing research that provides evidence relevant to this issue.

In addition, experiments have made it clear that many mutations are in fact random, and did not occur because the organism was placed in a situation where the mutation would be useful. For example, if you expose bacteria to an antibiotic, you will likely observe an increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance. Esther and Joshua Lederberg determined that many of these mutations for antibiotic resistance existed in the population even before the population was exposed to the antibiotic — and that exposure to the antibiotic did not cause those new resistant mutants to appear.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... d+mutation

directed mutations
The hypothesis that mutations that are useful under particular circumstances are more likely to happen if the organism is actually in those circumstances. In other words, the idea that mutation is directed by what the organism needs. There is little evidence to support this hypothesis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

In biology, a mutation is the permanent alteration of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA or other genetic elements. Mutations result from damage to DNA which is not repaired, errors in the process of replication, or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements. Mutations may or may not produce discernible changes in the observable characteristics (phenotype) of an organism. Mutations play a part in both normal and abnormal biological processes including: evolution, cancer, and the development of the immune system, including junctional diversity.

Mutation can result in many different types of change in sequences. Mutations in genes can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely. Mutations can also occur in nongenic regions. One study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila suggests that, if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms that have damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or marginally beneficial. Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA repair to prevent or correct mutations by reverting the mutated sequence back to its original state.

Mutations can involve the duplication of large sections of DNA, usually through genetic recombination. These duplications are a major source of raw material for evolving new genes, with tens to hundreds of genes duplicated in animal genomes every million years. Most genes belong to larger gene families of shared ancestry, known as homology. Novel genes are produced by several methods, commonly through the duplication and mutation of an ancestral gene, or by recombining parts of different genes to form new combinations with new functions.

Okay.
So mutations can occur in species - some beneficial, some harmful, some neutral.
So what.

Useful mutations are the ones which occur as an increase of number of chromosomes in exact number of times. This method is applied in taming plants and animals, production of larger fruits and improvement of milk and meat production. However, it is impossible to reproduce new and different species out of these. Duplicating the number of chromosomes of a corn brings forth larger-grained and bigger cobbed corns and the corn still remains a corn and the corn does not produce beans.

http://www.questionsonislam.com/article ... ew-species

Mutations cannot transform an original species

https://books.google.com/books?id=TzIap ... es&f=false

Come on guys - seriously.
What happened?
Did the environment suddenly transform after some billions of years?
So now - no more mutations... into other species - naturally?
Oh yeah. I forgot - Marvel comics.

Conclusion

More than %99 of mutations is definitely harmful. This is all that is supposed to come out of random events.

Even after decades of human-guided, selection of mutations, the result is still

little evidence to support this hypothesis

Nice try Student. Both deceptive and well crafted at the same time, but your sneaky attempt to cram nonsense in your post is caught...again. I like the style though. Quote a whole bunch of legitimate definitions, lulling the reader into complacency. Then BOOM, post a claim that mutations cannot lead to new species from a website -this is classic - called "questions on Islam"! ROFL! I can't speak for everyone, but I know that when I have need of information about genetic mutations and the theory of evolution, my first source of choice is "questions on Islam".

Then you post a quote from "The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences" in the section on Natural Selection. When I can't find my mutation and evolution information at "questions on Islam", my second choice is always an encyclopedia on psychology....

But I did some digging on why natural selection is even IN that book. Reading the article I noticed that the author credits Behe at one point. I know who he is, and sure enough a little bit later in the article the words "irreducible complexity" came up. Behe was one of the creationist pseudoscientists that was laughed out of court in the Kitsmiller verses Dover Area School District trial when he tried to claim that cilium on bacteria are too complex to evolve. Other scientists came in and explained why this was not the case, and showed how it happened. "Irreducible complexity" is a failed concept that many beliefs still get to use against the theory of evolution.

My favorite Behe quote of all time, by the way, is the one he stated while under oath during cross examination in that Dover trial: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".

At the end of the article, guess who is credited with writing it? Your old boy Lonnig! He was one of the guys in your quote mining fiasco thread in Random Ramblings, where after I showed you how those articles took things out of context you said you would review my information, and you haven't posted since? Wolf Lonnig is a creationist. He uses Behe's irreducible complexity claim in a 2010 publication, four years after it was laughed out of court.

Lonnig is a smart guy, with degrees and all. He's done real scientific research from what I can tell. He's certainly entitled to his opinion as a creationist. But if you think presenting one opinion from a degrees scientist (who uses in part a failed concept demolished in a courtroom years before), plus some dribble from an Islamic site, proves your point, then you haven't a clue how this works.

You obviously believe in some kind of god, and want to refute evolution because it's findings contradict parts of your belief system. You have every right to feel the way you do, and every right to have your opinion. But all this cutting and pasting of non scientific material, with quote mines and attempts to redefine scientific theories to include the Big Bang and abiogenesis, is a waste of everyone's time. If you really think that one guys opinion on mutations in a psychology book invalidates the entire work of genetics, geology, paleontology, biology, morphology, etc? That's foolish thinking.

I've tried to tell you that you have to overcome billions of fossils, hundreds of thousands of sequenced genomes, 150 years of geology, biology, morphology, and paleontology. Even with degrees creationists like Lonnig and the people at Answers in Genesis trying to prove their bible story, all they have managed to produce which you can provide us is a quote form a psychology encyclopedia and something from "questions on Islam"...

Your argument was lost before you registered your account here dude...

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to theStudent]

Here is a surprise to me, not to mention, adding to the confusion.

Darwinism is the theory proposed by Charles Darwin. Darwinism explains evolution in terms of over-production, struggle for existence, variations, survival of the fittest and natural selection.

Fossils indicate the relationships between different groups, of organisms. They also help in constructing the story of life's journey on this planet.

How is it that Fossils, is not included in Darwinism?
Is there anyone who would like to explain this?
Although it's not that important to me, but.. more confusion.

Student, the description of Darwinism above is telling you the processes that shape the change in living things over time. "Fossils" are evidence of these changes, they aren't a process that shaped the changes. If they were listing evidences for the changes, they would have included fossils in that list, but that wasn't the purpose of that sentence.

Darwin does talk about fossils in his book by the way. Maybe you should read it instead of pulling a couple of sentences off some website (that you again fail to reference).

I find this a little worrysome to be honest. It appears you don't understand the difference between a process (natural selection) and evidence (fossil). I'm my opinion you should take some time off posting about this topic and educate yourself better about the entire thing. I don't just mean a day or two either, but perhaps a month? I enjoy discussing evolution with people, but a solid knowledge base about the topic is important, and I think you should build yours before we continue this discourse.

Thank you, for your explanation, and your, probably sincere suggestions.
I think I am doing quite well however - for an amateur, and I believe that's evident.

It was sincere. I would not agree you are doing well however, as my post immediately before this one will show

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 113 by theStudent]

Was there a specific point to post 113? Would you mind terribly if I asked you to state it? I can't figure it out. The only objection you seem to raise is that DuBois seemed "vexed" and "desperate", but since we can't surmise the point of that whole post I have no clue what being "vexed" has to do with anything....

The statements are all connected.

1. Instead of suggesting that they wait until more evidence is found to verify his theory, he got vexed. He got vexed.
2. What does that suggest?
3. Well, when someone is determined to find something to support their ideas, they are not interested in verifyable proof - like two or three witnesses. They just want their idea to be accepted as proof.
4. Pity... The poor guy seems desperate.

Simply
If I have a belief system I am trying to establish.
If I find anything that seems to be able to support it.
I will try desperately to hold on to it.
If others challenge it, I would not be interested in whether I had any proof to back it up, but rather, I would argue strongly for what I have, and visibly show my anger toward those who oppose.

I'm suggesting that he was not interested in solid, verifiable proof, rather he was looking for anything that he could use to establish their belief system.

His opinion was BASED on the solid, verifiable proof that was dug out of the ground. His opinion was BASED on the solid, verifiable date of the find (which was later confirmed through Ar-Ar testing).

The dispute you've highlighted happens in science all the time. That's exactly how science works actually. There is supposed to be a lot of people weighing in on the evidence. The history of Java Man is a great example of that. Did anyone in all that you posted try to claim that this wasn't an early hominid or pre-hominid? No. It's obviously different enough from modern humans to be a different species of hominid at a minimum, and possibly a pre-hominid species. The only question is where it falls on the tree of life. DuBois thought it was pre hominid based on the evidence, others thought it was an early type of hominid.

You certainly don't see anyone claiming it is the remains of a giraffe, or Adam and Eve. Those few bones are more than enough info to tell that it is a homo sapiens precursor.

With the advent of genetics it became clear that modern humans came out of Africa, not Asia, settling the dispute about the modern hominid species that is humans.