Biological diversity does not suggest we evolved from fish

[stcordova]

Humans are more similar to chimps than they are to trees. This was well known by creationists even before Darwin.

We might superficially then claim chimps and humans must have descended from a common ancestor. And we could rinse and repeat and say, "we're more similar to fish than to trees as well so we fish and humans must have descended from a common ancestor of fish and humans."

The problem then is we follow the logic carefully, we must therefore conclude we didn't evolve from fish, at best fish and humans descended from some unspecified a common ancestor.

So let me for the sake of argument assume evolutionism is true. What can we conclude from these diagrams:

Vertebrates descend from Vetebrates
Mammals descend from Mammals
Primates descend from Primates
Humans descend from Humans

Therefore: Humans descended from Humans

Evolutionists however will give the following non-sequitur:

Vertebrates descend from Vetebrates
Mammals descend from Mammals
Primates descend from Primates
Humans descend from Humans

Therefore: Humans descended from Fish

Here is a diagram at the anatomical level that shows a very nice hierarchical pattern from universe review.

http://universe-review.ca/I10-82-vertebrates.jpg




and then regarding the bone morphogenetic proteins

http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1- ... 18-gr1.jpg




What these diagrams show is that Fish will not give birth to anything but something fish like. It won't give rise to Primates!

As Michael Denton pointed out, superficially the structure of diversity in the biosphere suggest common descent, but the problem is it also suggest that there won't be any transitionals even in principle. Hence a careful study of the diagrams might lead one to think special creation is a better explanation since it is evident that fish don't give any hint of being ancestors to primates.

[mickeymudge]

Has it seriously never crossed your mind that we have the largest heads per body ration, in comparison to anything else we have found?

No, this has never crossed my mind... because it's a false claim!
Our heads are actually not that big in comparison to our body.
I mean, they are bigger than many other animals, but I can point to just as many who have a higher heat/body-ratio.
Sperm whales, for example.
Or just generally ants.
...
I mean, I really don't know where you got this idea from.

Now, about these studies...
I didn't find any reliable sources on this (I did find stuff, but nothing really reliable).
Maybe you can point me to the peer-reviewed sources.
Thanks.

No, this has never crossed my mind... because it's a false claim!
Our heads are actually not that big in comparison to our body.
I mean, they are bigger than many other animals, but I can point to just as many who have a higher heat/body-ratio.
Sperm whales, for example.
Or just generally ants.

And yes some insects don't apply to my claim, but my point is that by far, in comparison to most species, our Brain to body ratio is much higher than you would expect. Do you seriously think we are so super that it's size explains it's necessity?

Let's try looking at this from another angle. We only use 2% of our DNA. The rest is dormant. Now I'm sure this makes an excellent sales pitch for the day that scientists figure out that I'm correct and we have dormant powers, but I can see evolutionists jumping forward saying LOOK AT HOW WE EVOLVED! Totally ignorant to the fact that they are already listed in the bible as being disabled.

98% Dormant DNA. Whats really going on? I think I'm right, I think the bible is right, and I think all the doctors and scientists are right that agree that we have abilities. I don't see how so many can be wrong.

[mickeymudge]

Wiki on Nina Kulagina

Many individuals and organizations, such as the James Randi Educational Foundation and the Italian Committee for the Investigation of Claims on the Paranormal (CICAP) express skepticism regarding claims of psychokinesis. Massimo Polidoro has written that the long preparation times and uncontrolled environments (such as hotel rooms) in which the experiments with Kulagina took place left much potential for trickery.[11] Magicians and skeptics have argued that Kulagina's feats could easily be performed by one practiced in sleight of hand, through means such as cleverly concealed or disguised threads, small pieces of magnetic metal, or mirrors and the Cold War-era Soviet Union had an obvious motive for falsifying or exaggerating results in the potential propaganda value in appearing to win a "Psi Race" analogous to the concurrent Space Race or arms race.[11][12][13][14]

Vladimir Lvov published an article in Pravda which accused Kulagina of fraud. Lvov wrote she performed one of her tricks by concealing a magnet on her body. The article also reported that Kulagina had been arrested for cheating the public out of five thousand rubles.[15] Science writer Martin Gardner described Kulagina as a "pretty, plump, dark eyed little charlatan" who was caught on two occasions using tricks to move objects

I find no evidence of any of the others passing controlled condition tests, not David Morehouse, not Ingo Swann and not Joseph McMoneagle.


No one has been able to collect the Randi Prize: "a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power."

[Replying to Freddy_Scissorhands]

Humans do not have the highest brain size to body ratio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-to-body_mass_ratio

Well of course not, simply because we have incredulous people everywhere. I think your reading to much into that her feats COULD have been slight of hand, or COULD have been with strings. The fact that the scientists didn't catch any such thing in process isn't apparently what makes the decision here, it's how much skepticism the others can have that does. I'm sorry but skepticism doesn't disprove anything.

It's like yesterday while talking to my mother in law, in which I have had one heck of a time convincing her that the metallic object in the sky of the Ezekiel chapter was surely a space craft. We went from No it's not, to it being a chariot, to me claiming that a chariot with horses did not descend from the skies, but rather it was a chariot of the gods, AKA a space craft. She talked with her pastor who set her straight that it was in fact a space craft, just like mine did, so now she comes back with..... Well just because God is flying a space craft, doesn't mean he's an alien.

No, of course it doesn't.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can never make him drink.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 41 by mickeymudge]

Skepticism does not prove anything, neither does ignorance or gullibility.

Skepticism does, however, disprove things ... unlike ignorance or gullibility.

[mickeymudge]

[Replying to post 41 by mickeymudge]

Skepticism does not prove anything, neither does ignorance or gullibility.

Skepticism does, however, disprove things ... unlike ignorance or gullibility.

Agreed but show me the source that proves believing in her feats is ignorant or gulibile?

Anyone can just claim that with nothing to back it up.
Nina has documented cases under strict supervision by some of the finest doctors and scientists, you're basically saying that they all were tricked as well. It's a pretty bold claim considering they would have been looking for such trickery.

You're basically saying that you're so incredulous that you would gladly take the response of those in a difference of acceptance over the doctors.

Being ignorant isn't going to teach you anything. It only allows you to accept what you want to believe in.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 41 by mickeymudge]

Skepticism does not prove anything, neither does ignorance or gullibility.

Skepticism does, however, disprove things ... unlike ignorance or gullibility.

Agreed but show me the source that proves believing in her feats is ignorant or gulibile?

Anyone can just claim that with nothing to back it up.
Nina has documented cases under strict supervision by some of the finest doctors and scientists, you're basically saying that they all were tricked as well. It's a pretty bold claim considering they would have been looking for such trickery.

No, I'm saying produce the references of these finest doctors and scientists so that I may evaluate them.

[mickeymudge]

[Replying to post 44 by H.sapiens]

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're so incredulous that simply not accepting the fact that she was watched by over 40 scientists 2 of which were nobel Laureates, is good enough. Now you have to investigate them. Then if you can't find any dirt to dig up on them, you will want to check out their parents history, then their work history, then their employers history. Somewhere somehow, you will have to find someone that didn't at least do something as bad as pay a parking ticket.

Because we all know that aliens don't necessarily pilot UFO's!

According to reports from the Soviet Union, 40 scientists, two of whom were Nobel laureates, studied Kulagina.[6] In Investigating Psychics, Larry Kettlekamp claims that Mikhailova was filmed separating broken eggs that had been submerged in water, moving apart the whites and yolks, during which event such physical changes were recorded as accelerated and altered: heartbeat, brain waves and electromagnetic field.[7



William F. Barrett
Daryl Bem
Hans Bender
Stephen E. Braude
Whately Carington
Hereward Carrington
Tony Cornell
William Crookes
Eric Dingwall
Peter Fenwick
Camille Flammarion
Nandor Fodor
Bruce Greyson
Erlendur Haraldsson
John Hasted
Rosalind Heywood
Richard Hodgson
Hans Holzer
Charles Honorton
James Hyslop
Brian Inglis
Robert G. Jahn
William James
Raynor Johnson
Brian Josephson
Stanley Krippner
Thomas Lethbridge
Oliver Lodge
James McKenzie
Edgar Mitchell
Raymond Moody
Gardner Murphy
Frederic Myers
Karlis Osis
Sam Parnia
Michael Persinger
Guy Lyon Playfair
Frank Podmore
Joseph Gaither Pratt
Harry Price
Walter Franklin Prince
Andrija Puharich
Harold Puthoff
Dean Radin
J. B. Rhine
Charles Richet
D. Scott Rogo
William Roll
Helmut Schmidt
Gary Schwartz
Rupert Sheldrake
Henry Sidgwick
Samuel Soal
Ian Stevenson
Ingo Swann
Russell Targ
Charles Tart
Jessica Utts
Karl Zener

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to mickeymudge]
I asked you for references, that means refereed publications, not for a list of names, many of whom are quacks from the turn of the last century.

[Freddy_Scissorhands]

And yes some insects don't apply to my claim, but my point is that by far, in comparison to most species, our Brain to body ratio is much higher than you would expect. Do you seriously think we are so super that it's size explains it's necessity?

No, it's not just insects.
As I've told you, sperm whales also apply.
Tree shrew, mice, lions...
I mean... this claim is just wrong. Well, unless you just exclude everything that doesn't fit.
"Humans have this amazingly big heat/body ratio... if we ignore all creatures who that applies to. Because if we didn't, this feature of us wouldn't be that special anymore."
I don't know what you mean with "so super". And I don't kow what you mean by "it's size explains it necessity". This phrase doesn't tell me anything. Maybe you can rephrase it?

[/quote]
Let's try looking at this from another angle. We only use 2% of our DNA. The rest is dormant. Now I'm sure this makes an excellent sales pitch for the day that scientists figure out that I'm correct and we have dormant powers,...[/quote]

If you would call having dorment viruses getting reactivated which probably would kill us... then yeah... sure. We have dormant powers!
Because that's what a certain part of our DNA is: Dormant retro-viruses, which we have gotten passed on from an incredibly long line of generations in the past. We still clearly recognize them as viruses, they are just inactivated. So, if you think reactivating them would in any way reveal any powers of us... yeah, I have to say I'm very, very sceptical.
Many other "dormant" features are just long lines of repeated sequences, which really don't do anything. This is not really a secret. We know how our DNA works, what functions it can take. And these long repeated sequences they can't have any specific function, at least not anything that could give us some "powers".
So... I don't know if you have any evidence to support that the inactive DNA gives us "special powers"... but as far as I can tell, you've just looked at the numbers about our inactive DNA, saw a mysterie, and decided that this mysterie must be linked to some super-powers.
Or do you have something more than just your... let's call it "intuition"?

[/quote]...and I think all the doctors and scientists are right that agree that we have abilities. I don't see how so many can be wrong.[/color]

Well... yes, we have "abilities". We can speak, walk, swim, breath, see...
We have many, many abilities.

Now, you didn't answer my other question.
Could you please point me to the peer reviewed studies, that support your claim that these phenomena (telepathy, etc...) are actual, real phenomena? I would like to have a look at it.

[mickeymudge]

[Replying to mickeymudge]
I asked you for references, that means refereed publications, not for a list of names, many of whom are quacks from the turn of the last century.

Well first of all you apparently aren't aware of the fact that peer reviews weren't a commonly used method before 1967. In addition peer reviews don't mean squat. It's just other peoples acceptance or rejection of the subject. Granted the person in question should be scrutinized, but I have to agree there must be a more honest approach that doesn't involve personal opinion.

For example, Albert Einstein only ever had ONE peer review, and it was in work that was shared. Was Albert Einstein a quack?

http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-my ... er-review/

I'm going to take a jab at this and just tell you what it looks like from my point of view. Consider the use of peer review at the journal Nature. The prestige associated with publishing in Nature is, of course, considerable, and so competition to get published there is tough. According to Nature’s website, only 8 percent of submissions are accepted, and the rest are rejected.

It's clear that asking for peer reviews is frequently a tactic used by incredulous people to try to claim that something is not legit, when in fact it's not even given a chance.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to mickeymudge]
I asked you for references, that means refereed publications, not for a list of names, many of whom are quacks from the turn of the last century.

Well first of all you apparently aren't aware of the fact that peer reviews weren't a commonly used method before 1967. In addition peer reviews don't mean squat. It's just other peoples acceptance or rejection of the subject. Granted the person in question should be scrutinized, but I have to agree there must be a more honest approach that doesn't involve personal opinion.

For example, Albert Einstein only ever had ONE peer review, and it was in work that was shared. Was Albert Einstein a quack?

http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-my ... er-review/

I'm going to take a jab at this and just tell you what it looks like from my point of view. Consider the use of peer review at the journal Nature. The prestige associated with publishing in Nature is, of course, considerable, and so competition to get published there is tough. According to Nature’s website, only 8 percent of submissions are accepted, and the rest are rejected.

It's clear that asking for peer reviews is frequently a tactic used by incredulous people to try to claim that something is not legit, when in fact it's not even given a chance.

Thank you for your opinion on peer review, I hope you don't mind if I disagree. Also I appreciate you continuing to show that you have zero evidence to provide for us to examine.

Good story though, but I find it implausible.