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.

[H.sapiens]

I was not alleging that this proves we have ESP powers, I was suggesting that it could, but that at least it proves we OBVIOUSLY DON"T know everything about the brain, and obviously that the brain CAN work better than our once ill perceived notion (based on nothing actually) that our brains are operating at optimum performance.

Maybe you will understand it better if I put it this way. The reason our brains are able to work better, is simply because they can.

Ah … so your basic argument is one from ignorance?

No you're right, he did NOT demonstrate any ESP abilities, if you want proof of those you go to this guy...
Dr Michael Persinger, is a cognitive neuroscience researcher and university professor. He was able to prove that humans have thought transference between each other. With one subject in one room, and another in a room with him, he shines a bright flashlight in the subject's eye, and according to computers, the person in the other room, registered a sympathetic response at the same time. Persinger also works in the field's of telepathy and clairvoyance. He also claims that certain gifted people have remote viewing.

Persinger is a fraud, his claims have never been duplicated though there were many attempts.

Or you could go to these guys...

The only difference I'm able to find about the two, is Psychokinesis looks like it might require some type of physical movement of your body, where Telekinesis appears to be totally through the mind. Nina Kulagina could move objects that were close to her hands, and even stop a frog's heart from beating. Scientists claim that poltergeist activity is generated from the mind of the subject, yet not coherently controlled. Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon, …

Neither Ankerberg nor Weldon have any science credentials. They are evangelical preachers with degrees in ministry and comparative religion respectively. They are best know for the series of The Facts on … (the Mormon Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, Islam, the Masonic Lodge, and Halloween) books as well as How to Know if You're Going to Heaven, and some pro Israel tracts.

It appears that your arguments from authority are stalled, your authorities just don't cut the mustard.

[mickeymudge]

Dr Michael Persinger, is a cognitive neuroscience researcher and university professor. He was able to prove that humans have thought transference between each other.

Rubbish!
"The only published attempt to replicate these effects failed to do so and concluded that subjects' reports correlated with their personality characteristics and suggestibility. They also criticised Persinger for insufficient double-blinding and argued that there was no physiologically plausible mechanism by which his device could affect the brain. Persinger responded that the researchers had an incorrect computer setup and that many of his previous experiments were indeed carried out double-blind. Both claims are disputed.

The evidence base on which Persinger's theory rests has been criticised and commercial versions of Persinger's devices sold by his research associate Todd Murphy have proved unable to produce the effects that Murphy claims under experimental conditions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Persinger

Well there you go. Are you going to listen to the criticism, or listen to the facts? There could be a multitude of reasons why it's not been repeatable by others. Clearly Persinger is able to achieve something the others aren't. Not that a doctor can't lie, but seriously, whats the point? What is the benefit of lying about such a thing? Also consider your source, I have already proven they are batting about a 50% average of accuracy when it comes to these things.

[mickeymudge]

[Replying to post 90 by H.sapiens]

I was not alleging that this proves we have ESP powers, I was suggesting that it could, but that at least it proves we OBVIOUSLY DON"T know everything about the brain, and obviously that the brain CAN work better than our once ill perceived notion (based on nothing actually) that our brains are operating at optimum performance.

Maybe you will understand it better if I put it this way. The reason our brains are able to work better, is simply because they can.
Ah … so your basic argument is one from ignorance?

Nope, my argument is from cold hard facts. If you see a bird fly, it's obviously because it can. I like to call it common sense.

No you're right, he did NOT demonstrate any ESP abilities, if you want proof of those you go to this guy...
Dr Michael Persinger, is a cognitive neuroscience researcher and university professor. He was able to prove that humans have thought transference between each other. With one subject in one room, and another in a room with him, he shines a bright flashlight in the subject's eye, and according to computers, the person in the other room, registered a sympathetic response at the same time. Persinger also works in the field's of telepathy and clairvoyance. He also claims that certain gifted people have remote viewing.

Persinger is a fraud, his claims have never been duplicated though there were many attempts.

I will reject your opinion until you are able to prove it otherwise.

Or you could go to these guys...

The only difference I'm able to find about the two, is Psychokinesis looks like it might require some type of physical movement of your body, where Telekinesis appears to be totally through the mind. Nina Kulagina could move objects that were close to her hands, and even stop a frog's heart from beating. Scientists claim that poltergeist activity is generated from the mind of the subject, yet not coherently controlled. Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon, …

Neither Ankerberg nor Weldon have any science credentials. They are evangelical preachers with degrees in ministry and comparative religion respectively. They are best know for the series of The Facts on … (the Mormon Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, Islam, the Masonic Lodge, and Halloween) books as well as How to Know if You're Going to Heaven, and some pro Israel tracts.

It appears that your arguments from authority are stalled, your authorities just don't cut the mustard.

Well then maybe you can contact them, and let them know how your PHD, out does their PHD, and that you have investigated the subject more thoroughly and can prove them wrong.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 91 by mickeymudge]
50% is failure.

Persinger was once a respected researcher, but he appears to be subject to increasingly criticism in recent years. It happens.

[Danmark]

Dr Michael Persinger, is a cognitive neuroscience researcher and university professor. He was able to prove that humans have thought transference between each other.

Rubbish!
"The only published attempt to replicate these effects failed to do so and concluded that subjects' reports correlated with their personality characteristics and suggestibility. They also criticised Persinger for insufficient double-blinding and argued that there was no physiologically plausible mechanism by which his device could affect the brain. Persinger responded that the researchers had an incorrect computer setup and that many of his previous experiments were indeed carried out double-blind. Both claims are disputed.

The evidence base on which Persinger's theory rests has been criticised and commercial versions of Persinger's devices sold by his research associate Todd Murphy have proved unable to produce the effects that Murphy claims under experimental conditions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Persinger

Well there you go. Are you going to listen to the criticism, or listen to the facts? There could be a multitude of reasons why it's not been repeatable by others. Clearly Persinger is able to achieve something the others aren't.

What you are failing to consider is a principle of the scientific method, that results should be replicable. The fact that Persinger's are not demonstrates he made errors, intentional or otherwise, to achieve his results. Even when Persinger had a financial motive to reproduce his results he could not do so. This does not mean Persinger had some special or magical ability. It means his results were either fraudulent or based on sloppy methodology.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 90 by H.sapiens]

I was not alleging that this proves we have ESP powers, I was suggesting that it could, but that at least it proves we OBVIOUSLY DON"T know everything about the brain, and obviously that the brain CAN work better than our once ill perceived notion (based on nothing actually) that our brains are operating at optimum performance.

Maybe you will understand it better if I put it this way. The reason our brains are able to work better, is simply because they can.
Ah … so your basic argument is one from ignorance?


Nope, my argument is from cold hard facts. If you see a bird fly, it's obviously because it can. I like to call it common sense.

No you're right, he did NOT demonstrate any ESP abilities, if you want proof of those you go to this guy...
Dr Michael Persinger, is a cognitive neuroscience researcher and university professor. He was able to prove that humans have thought transference between each other. With one subject in one room, and another in a room with him, he shines a bright flashlight in the subject's eye, and according to computers, the person in the other room, registered a sympathetic response at the same time. Persinger also works in the field's of telepathy and clairvoyance. He also claims that certain gifted people have remote viewing.

Persinger is a fraud, his claims have never been duplicated though there were many attempts.

I will reject your opinion until you are able to prove it otherwise.

Or you could go to these guys...

The only difference I'm able to find about the two, is Psychokinesis looks like it might require some type of physical movement of your body, where Telekinesis appears to be totally through the mind. Nina Kulagina could move objects that were close to her hands, and even stop a frog's heart from beating. Scientists claim that poltergeist activity is generated from the mind of the subject, yet not coherently controlled. Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon, …

Neither Ankerberg nor Weldon have any science credentials. They are evangelical preachers with degrees in ministry and comparative religion respectively. They are best know for the series of The Facts on … (the Mormon Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, Islam, the Masonic Lodge, and Halloween) books as well as How to Know if You're Going to Heaven, and some pro Israel tracts.

It appears that your arguments from authority are stalled, your authorities just don't cut the mustard.

Well then maybe you can contact them, and let them know how your PHD, out does their PHD, and that you have investigated the subject more thoroughly and can prove them wrong.

This post is hopelessly messy and confusing. You are not showing what is quoted and what is your own work. Using different colors is ambiguous at best. This problem is easy to fix. Just use the 'quote' function, or at least use quotation marks and paragraph breaks. If you can't figure it out yourself, send me or someone else a PM and we'll walk you through it.

[H.sapiens]

Well then maybe you can contact them, and let them know how your PHD, out does their PHD, and that you have investigated the subject more thoroughly and can prove them wrong.[/color]

Why would I bother? I have no need to prove them wrong, they must prove their own claims.

All advanced degrees are not equal, all PhDs are not equal, if you are interested in the details I can provide them at another time. The needs of this conversation are met by nothing more than observing that Ankerberg and Weldon have no more scientific training than do my cats, maybe less.

[mickeymudge]

Well then maybe you can contact them, and let them know how your PHD, out does their PHD, and that you have investigated the subject more thoroughly and can prove them wrong.[/color]

Why would I bother? I have no need to prove them wrong, they must prove their own claims.

All advanced degrees are not equal, all PhDs are not equal, if you are interested in the details I can provide them at another time. The needs of this conversation are met by nothing more than observing that Ankerberg and Weldon have no more scientific training than do my cats, maybe less.

Well that was the whole point, he already has proven his own findings. Just because someone else is not able to replicate it isn't proof it's not real.

What you're really saying is you accept the credentials of the criticism over the original findings, but you're not backing up why with any legitimate reason. Obviously there is MORE reason to believe the claims are true (which is everything I have been posting) based on supporting reasons I have shared. Certainly ALL the people I'm referencing can't be wrong. Have you single handedly proven all these people to be false? I don't think so. Everyone is wrong and you're right?

And now I"m asking for the second time, where do you get the notion that they are not qualified to work in such a field? (only now I"m blunt about it.) I understand you believe your cat has more experience in the field but I wasn't looking for opinions, I was looking for facts.

I understand there are different types of PHD's, what I was trying to point out is that you're not proving that he is working in a field that he's not educated in. I'm sure none of which matters, because if there are any claims supported by doctors, scientists, researchers, that doesn't meet the mind of an incredulous audience, they will always simply claim that they are not credible. They didn't have the correct people assess their claims. And god forbid if they did, you would seriously question that persons authority. The bottom line is the general public never wants to imagine anything is probable that could potentially scare them.

Sort of like me understanding that God is a space alien. So people try to argue with me that it's just my opinion, or I'm making it up, or they simply are to afraid to believe such a thing. Which is clearly why I have a problem sleeping at night. All the while I have backed up the facts, and those are redundantly backed up, but still , somehow, somewhere, we have incredulous people.

If I told you that you will never believe in anything that you don't currently believe in right now, you would probably agree with me.

People always think they know everything. They have heard everything there is to hear. They have experienced everything there is. They know God isn't a space alien because they feel Jesus in their hearts.

I'm sorry, there are too many documents that prove you are wrong according to the bible, in addition we have scientists and doctors that are all agreeing with individual sections of my findings. Including one Doctor that swears humans aren't from Earth. Now I'm not the smartest guy in the world, but doesn't that make us aliens? Maybe you might want to tip toe through all of these to see where I'm coming from.

an atomic bomb. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_D%C3%A4niken

Earth-is-not-our-home-hebrews-111-16.html for the supernatural intention translation. http://gspcsermons.blogspot.com/2008/08/

http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics. ... equencies/

Allan Snyder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Snyder

Dr and author / Ecologist, Ellis Silver, http://humansarefree.com/2013/11/humans ... s-our.html

aborted alien fetus, http://www.ufosightingsdaily.com/2013/0 ... cking.html

10% brain myth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_brain_myth

mtDNA wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

abduction and militant control engineering by proxy. http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case354.htm

The Search for Mitochondrial Eve. "NewsWeek" http://www.virginia.edu/woodson/courses ... erney.html

The UFO Threat A Fact. http://www.greatdreams.com/ufos/firefighters.htm

Endangered animal Author, George, S Fichter, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction ... ite_note-2

Andrew Weil, M.D. http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA400757/P ... e-Ice.html

Hopkins, Jacobs and sociologist Dr. Ron Westrum, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_abduction_claimants

Kelly Cahill,

Donald Decker, http://beforeitsnews.com/strange/2013/1 ... 53368.html

David Morehouse, Ingo Swann and Joseph McMoneagle. http://realpsychicpower.com/famous-remote-viewers

Elgar G, and Vavouri T. http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-coding_DNA

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=natural+definition

http://www.niams.nih.gov/Health_Info/Bo ... sis_ff.asp

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... guide.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_alien

The Spaceships of Ezekiel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spaceships_of_Ezekiel

Author/researcher, Lloyd Pye,

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. http://www.nih.gov/about/director/

Robert Fludd, Ted Serios, http://chronicle.com/article/Ted-SeriosPsychic/126388/

Dr. Dmitri Alden, http://hauteliving.com/2013/12/food-kil ... en/433471/

Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon, http://www.inplainsite.org/html/polterg ... uLckK.dpuf

Most bible passages as well as variations, and indexing searces were taken from. http://legacy.biblegateway.com/

Michael A. Persinger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Persinger

http://www.remoteviewed.com/rvhistorymap.html

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 97 by mickeymudge]
No, the point is that reproducibility is one of the keystones of science. Without it you have proven nothing, in fact, without it you are in jeopardy of being considered a fraud.

I haven't the time to analyze you laundry list, so I'll take the first. You should learn to be more selective. Erich Anton Paul von Däniken! Plagiarist. conman, liar, convicted thief ... you must be kidding.

That writing as careless as von Däniken's, whose principal thesis is that our ancestors were dummies, should be so popular is a sober commentary on the credulousness and despair of our times.

I also hope for the continuing popularity of books like Chariots of the Gods? in high school and college logic courses, as object lessons in sloppy thinking. I know of no recent books so riddled with logical and factual errors as the works of von Däniken. - Carl Sagan

[mickeymudge]

[Replying to post 97 by mickeymudge]
No, the point is that reproducibility is one of the keystones of science. Without it you have proven nothing, in fact, without it you are in jeopardy of being considered a fraud.

And I agree with you ON THINGS WE KNOW ABOUT! The fact is we know little to nothing about these and just because they aren't re-creatable in every instance is NOT PROOF that it's not real. You have to consider the possibility that there is a lot more to the picture here than is meeting our eye at this point.

I haven't the time to analyze you laundry list, so I'll take the first. You should learn to be more selective. Erich Anton Paul von Däniken! Plagiarist. conman, liar, convicted thief ... you must be kidding.

E.V,D, is well known for abusing our system criminally in order to fund his productions. Not the most popular way to get the word out. I don't condone it. However this has nothing to do with the accuracy of his finds. I find his work to be dead on, and in fact with further research have only found him to be even more right. You can't simply dissmiss someones work because they have had non related issues in what they are presented. If he wasn't a criminal I'm sure you or any other incredulous person would find some sort of dirt to dig up on him to try to thwart his claims. I have an idea for you. Try to stay more focused on the subject instead of peoples personal lives.

That writing as careless as von Däniken's, whose principal thesis is that our ancestors were dummies, should be so popular is a sober commentary on the credulousness and despair of our times.

So now what you're saying is that you have somehow managed to take a view point that would indicate that our people in that time were just as smart and advanced as we are. I think once again, you're focusing on personal lives instead of the subject. It's true that he does place them in this light, however I agree with him. The difference is that unlike you where this choice appears to be rectally derived, I actually have reasons for it. When you take a look at how primitive we were back then, without the technological advances we have today, I'm sure it's a no brainer that the people of that time were not up on the possibilities of things.

I for one feel that when God allegedly impregnated the virgin Mary, that all he did was artificial insemination. Of course the people back then would not be able to assume such a possibility. Now just to hit this home for you, the terms Holy Ghost and Holy spirit appear in the bible after the Tower of Babel. We all lost our Supernatural ability of Telepathy at that time. We were no longer able to transmit Telepathy to anyone. However God left our receive mode intact, so that he could still communicate with us. So after Babel when there is mention of God speaking to anyone, he is identified as the Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit as people did not know where the voices were coming from. Today if this happened to anyone, they would either think it's a ghost, a spirit, or an alien.


I also hope for the continuing popularity of books like Chariots of the Gods? in high school and college logic courses, as object lessons in sloppy thinking. I know of no recent books so riddled with logical and factual errors as the works of von Däniken. - Carl Sagan

So once again, you're admitting that you're taking sides based on others opinions. It's a little more accurate to stick to facts, that's what I try to do. You know what they say about opinions?