"A scientific Dissent from Darwinism"

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Shermana
Prodigy
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"
Been thanked: 5 times

"A scientific Dissent from Darwinism"

Post #1

Post by Shermana »

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... oad&id=660

This here is a list of many scientists and PH.D.s of numerous subjects from Genetics to Molecular Biology to Marine Geology
Radiology, Biomedical Engineering, Chemistry, Nuclear Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Bioengineering, Immunopharmacology, Geoscience, Neuroscience, Pharmacognosy, Physiology, Kineseology, Plant Pathology, Microbiology, Molecular Biophysics, Mathematical Physics, and more, who agree that:
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.�
This was last publicly updated December 2011. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.
Are these scientists all frauds?

Are these people all motivated by personal beliefs over objective evidence?

Are they all being dishonest?

Is their view on the matter unscientific?

Do they have basis for their claim to reject the majority opinion?

Are they being more honest than the majority concensus who accepts that the Darwinian (or "Neo"-Darwinian) approach can assertively be used to define the characteristics of life?

Is there evidence that the majority concensus is using that these PH.D.s and scientists are unaware of or ignoring?

Are they evidence that there is plenty of dissent on the issue of whether Macro-evolution is a "fact"?

Can one just brush off their opinions if the majority disagrees with them?

Is it fair to conclude that their dissent might be based on an objective, empirical examination of the available data and findings?

Is it fair to conclude that those who believe that Neo-Darwinian views CAN assertively account for the diversity of life may be just as biased (i.e. coming from a "naturalistic humanism" viewpoint) in which they base their belief on their pre-determined conclusion?

Is it safe to say that "Macro-evolution" is not a 100% agreed upon fact upon Professional scientists even if the majority support such an idea?

THEMAYAN
Student
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:29 am

Post #331

Post by THEMAYAN »

RESPONSE TO THEJACKELANTERN


THEJACKELANTERN said...
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiolog ... losion.htm

The debate persists today about whether the evolutionary "explosion" of the Cambrian was as sudden and spontaneous as it appears in the fossil record. The discovery of new pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossils help resolve the debate, as these transitional fossil forms support the hypothesis that diversification was well underway before the Cambrian began. More recently, the sequencing of the genomes of thousands of life forms is revealing just how many and what genes and the proteins they encode have been conserved from the Precambrian. The explosion of external form (the phenotype) in the fossil record is what we see now, but more gradual adaptation was taking place at the molecular level (the genotype). Wang et. al. (1999) for example, recently conducted phylogenetic studies divergences among animal phyla, plants, animals and fungi. These researchers estimated arthropods diverged from more primitive chordates more than 900 million years ago, and Nematodes from that lineage almost 1200 million years ago. They furthermore estimated that the plant, animal and fungi Kingdoms might have split split from a common ancestors almost 1600 million years ago. Finally, they conjecture that the basal animal phyla (Porifera, Cnidaria, Ctenophora) diverged between about 1200 and 1500 million years ago. If their research is valid, at least six major metazoan phyla appeared deep in the Precambrian, hundreds of millions of years before the oldest fossils in the fossil record.
I also find it interesting that you left this out of the page you got this information from.......
Such estimates of ancient divergence times could contain substantial error caused by uncertainty of the molecular clock assumptions, confounding effects of horizontal gene transfer, and errors in estimating sequence homology (i.e., similarlity). Consequently, attempts to date evolutionary branchings with molecular clocks have resulted in widely different estimates among researchers.

Can we call this quote mining? Yes I think we can. When I quoted Dawkins In spite of of his admission of
appearing for the first time out of no where with no evolutionary history
, I made it clear that he thought the fossil record was illusory.

TheJackelantern
Under Probation
Posts: 772
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:48 am

Post #332

Post by TheJackelantern »

The Cambrian radiation event sometime called the Cambrian explosion which Produced a great diversity of life appeared globally within a geological blink of an eye, and this phyla first appear already within their own categories, classifications, & already in very complex forms without any known ancestors.
millions of years.. Geological blink of an eye sure, but I don't think you comprehend how long millions of years is....

The problem with this is that we can only study the genomes of modern creatures. We cannot study the genomes of creatures that existed 500MY.
That's not a big issue as things show themselves to be related to each other.. So of course denial of evidence is seen here in your debate once again

Halkieria as of the many examples you have given are largely disputed even in the literature.
Really, do give us a peer reviewed journal on this.. Seems like you are just playing denial games.

These examples you cite all show during the middle or temporal Cambrian period with the exception of one that shows up in the early Cambrian period which means, that none of them could have been a pre Cambrian transitional.
Prove it, because from what I can tell, you are now just making stuff up.


Even the relationship between these phyla and other known post Cambrian phyla are greatly debated over.
Oh yes, by creationists of course..
You also seem to have failed to understand my statement. I was speaking of the absents of pre cambrian ancestors, not post Cambrian phyla.
Please define pre-cambrian anscestors... I don't even think you know what you are looking for.


Again all your example appear after the Cambrian radiation event.
Incorrec
How does this make this a false claim? Listen to what your saying. You are admitting that there was a massive extinction before the radiation even.
That's not a problem for evolution.. And were talking extinction events some 20 million years before.. The Cambrian explosions wasn't much of an explosion as you are trying to proclaim it to be.

The problems is that non of these enigmatic extinct creature (if they were indeed living creatures which is also disputed) show any relationship to the multi-cellular life that existed in the Cambrian phyla.
Please provide a peer review journal.



Furthermore, if these ediacara biota go extinct millions of years the before the CE, then this does not make a good case for transition. In addition there is great debate as whether these enigmatic ediacara biota were even living creature.
Wrong it does, and I see the game now, all transitional forms are now disputed as being living creatures.. Fun stuff!
Some consider them uekaryotes only because of there size, and others believe they were non living.

Peer review journal please where it discusses size as a determination for classifying something as "living"..
The fact remains that even your citation is filled with estimates based on conjecture.
Actually, all you posted was conjecture.. Basically every argument you make is "oh that's disputable".. It's like looking at your family album and proclaiming that you were never born, and the child in the photos isn't you because you have small gaps in the album.. That's pretty much your basic argument here.
Your citation also admits that rapid and sudden event is apparent in the fossil record as in ......
Umm yeah, rapid isn't 3 days.. Do you know how how many days are in just 1 million years vs 40 million + ? I don't think you grasp time scales. Only in geological terms is that a drop in the bucket, but not on evolutionary time scales.

This is what Dolf Seilacher has to say on the subject.....
EDIACARA BIOTA
German paleontologist Dolf Seilacher challenged the theory that organisms of the Ediacaran gave rise to later species. Seilacher's view was that the body plans were too simple and strange to have any relation with animals.
Now that is just stupid...
Even the sponge, the most basic creature, is divided into parts with a mouth like opening, leading to a digestive compartment, and the more complicated species have specialized organs and appendages, however, the Ediacaran fossils, show no such features.
Then he would have issues with protists to which show animal characteristics and plant like characteristics. Sorry if we excuse his ignorance on the subject. Animals are not classified specifically in regards to needing legs, arms, feet, a mouth ect..
Seilacher described them as immobile, jelly-filled organisms and classified them as Vendobionts.
Where did he get evidence for jelly filling? lol... BTw, organs of softbody animals are highly unlikely to fossilize. Such a bad argument by you that it's not even funny.
The evidence for multicellular life before the Cambrian event is extreme minute.
Sharks... And this is hilarious btw..

The first animals we see are sponges including their embryos, and if we can fing soft bodies embryos, we should be able to find other soft bodied ancestors.
Again we have comprehension fail.. Your chances of finding soft body fossils is pretty much nil..And if any are given it would be under extremely rare conditions... Your basing your argument on pure 100 percent assumption, and dishonesty knowing this fact..

Again if you can find 600MY soft bodied sponge embryos then you should be able to find soft bodied ancestors.
Incorrect.. It would not mean we can.. Please learn how fossilization works.. And understand that is highly unlikely.
You say I wrong about transitional forms and name a half a dozen that are highly disputed among experts and are not even precambrian phyla,
As far as I can tell, it's only disputed by creationists.

and then on another paragraph you send me potential excuses why there are no transitionals.
Denial of the transistionals is a key component in creationist logic of course. Also according to your logic, Dogs aren't related to each other either because you have no transitional forms between a poodle and the dogs they were bread from.
You also mentioned Chengjiang in China which is where some of the earliest and best preserved Cambrian phyla have been found, and what is said about the ediacara biota that preceded them is....
Their strange form and apparent disconnectedness from later organisms have led some to consider them a "failed experiment" in multicellular life, with later multicellular life independently re-evolving from unrelated single-celled organisms.
Nothing wrong with that.. We also have one eyed shark.. Hammer heads to which likely were a mutation event..
Where are these unrelated single-celled organisms? No one knows.
Doubt it..
Another put it like this concerning pre cambrian ediacara biota......
The first fossils that might represent animals appear towards the end of the Precambrian, around 610 million years ago, and are known as the Ediacaran or Vendian biota. These are difficult to relate to later fossils, however. Some may represent precursors of modern phyla, but they may be separate groups, and it is possible they are not really animals at all.
No they were likely animals... Plus what makes you think non-animal life can't evolve into animal like? Protists for example can be both plant like an animal like.. You have plants that have mouths and eat rats..Are they animals? What about the green sea slug? .. Funny, because your argument considers absolute denial based on 100 percent pure assumption that GOD DONE IT.
Zhou qui gin senior research fellow changing fauna states that there are no transitions and that multicelular life start suddenly appear. American scientist go to China to learn from the Chinese.
It's too bad it requires ignoring the examples...
Yeah, creationists that just make things up in order to conform it to the bible...
In the cambrian period we get organisms appearing for the first time out of no where with no evolutionary history. Needles to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationist"
Blind Watchmaker," 1986, p.229)
Dawkins of course believes that this sudden appearance is illusory, but I and many others dont. Example below
It is illusionary. You are ignoring millions of years, or trying include pre-cambrian fossils into cambrian fossils ect. There is a lot of dishonesty in your creationist sources.
"Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." (Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995
That's great.. This is where one of Darwin's theories was proven not exactly correct in modern biology. You can have sudden mutation and a new species..Or even cases where animals and plants can evolve faster than just gradual. None of what you speak of is against modern TOE.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 10034
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 1223 times
Been thanked: 1621 times

Post #333

Post by Clownboat »

pax wrote:
Clownboat wrote:No offense was taken. I asked if you could show that you speak the truth in regards to the claim that your god created him. I was a Christian for 20 years, so I already know that you cannot show that you speak truth in this regard, but I did hope that it might prevent you from making such statements on a debate forum.
Prove that God created Aquinas? How about this. You prove to me that Aquinas actually existed, and then from there I can easily prove that God created him.
There really is no need. Just please be mindful about making claims that you cannot provide evidence for when on a debate site (or at least don't get offended when it is pointed out that it is just a claim).
Woo hoo! Can you talk to me about all the different animals in the fossil record that are no longer around and explain how they came about. I would really like to hear your opinion on neanderthals ect... too.
If that is really what you want to talk about, then why are you challenging the existence of God? Why are you posting this:
You said that all scientific evidence points you to a god. I showed you some evidence and asked how that pointed you to god. This seems very reasonable to me.
If you are being truthful, please examine this and show how it convinces you that there is a god.
Maybe because the end game of all your conversations is to proselytize for your atheism?
You need to worry less about end games and other conspiracies that might be going on in your head and just stick the the discussion. I am genuinely interested in your comments and it is impossible to garnish anything from this conversation when you keep accusing me of end games and proselytizing. From a readers perspective, this looks like you are dodging.
Anyways, we shall see. Let's talk about fossils.

How was a fish fossilized in the act of giving birth?
This has been answered.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

THEMAYAN
Student
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:29 am

Post #334

Post by THEMAYAN »

And if you could find a rabbit in the Cambrian, you'd stop the ToE in its tracks.
Yes I have heard this mantra before.

No, that would not be enough. We have already found many anomalies in oop art that could stop ToE in its tracks, but what neo Darwinist do is just claim that they are hoaxes. Thats how the deal works. In fact someone actually did find trilobites on the bottom of fossilized sandals. He tried to tell anyone who would listen but the experts wrote them off before they even saw the evidence. The refutation was that they must be a hoax because everyone knows humans were not around during the Cambrian era and after all the guy was a Christian. You know, those guys like Newton,Mendel,Pasture,Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo. We have also found 2 million year anatomically correct human foot prints. The Neo Darwinist simply say that they must be from australopithecine, even though their feet had arboreal features and looked nothing like ours. We have also found dinosaurs with soft tissue and intact blood cells that are supposed to be 70 million years old. There is always away to to write if off. In the case of the dinosaur, the excuse is, we must have misunderstood the laws of physics. Understandably they dont have the backing of many physicist regarding that hypothesis.
Last edited by THEMAYAN on Fri Mar 09, 2012 10:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

TheJackelantern
Under Probation
Posts: 772
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:48 am

Post #335

Post by TheJackelantern »

I also find it interesting that you left this out of the page you got this information from......
I will have to find it considering I thought link given went to that..
, I made it clear that he thought the fossil record was illusory.
Notice that is his best argument from a creationist point of view.. He ignores the transitionals as transitionals.. That's all hes doing.. "I thought"

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2573 times

Post #336

Post by JoeyKnothead »

From Post 334:
THEMAYAN wrote:
JoeyKnothead wrote: And if you could find a rabbit in the Cambrian, you'd stop the ToE in its tracks.
...
No, that would not be enough. We have already found many anomalies in oop art that could stop ToE in its tracks, but what neo Darwinist do is just claim that they are hoaxes.
Please present an example for analysis.
THEMAYAN wrote: Thats how the deal works. In fact someone actually did find trilobites on the bottom of fossilized sandals. He tried to tell anyone who would listen but the experts wrote them off before they even saw the evidence. The refutation was that they must be a hoax because everyone knows humans were not around during the Cambrian era and after all the guy was a Christian.
Please present documentation for analysis.
THEMAYAN wrote: You know, those guys like Newton,Mendel,Pasture,Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo.
You are aware that all those folks died before the formulation of the ToE, ain'tcha?
THEMAYAN wrote: We have also found 2 million year anatomically correct human foot prints.
Please present documentation for analysis.
THEMAYAN wrote: The Neo Darwinst simply say that they must be from australopithecine, even though their feet had aboral features and looked nothing like ours.
Hopefully you'll present documentation as requested, and we can put these folks on the good path.
THEMAYAN wrote: We have also found dinosaurs with soft tissue and intact blood cells that are supposed to be 70 million years old.
Please present documentation for analysis.
THEMAYAN wrote: There is always away to to write if off. In the case of the dinosaur, the excuse is, we must have misunderstood the laws of physics. Understandably they dont have the backing of many physicist regarding that hypothesis.
Please present documentation for analysis.

Let's call this the 1st Challenge.

All I see is a bunch of assertions with absolutely no supporting data.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

lo_rez
Apprentice
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 4:39 pm

Post #337

Post by lo_rez »

THEMAYAN wrote:
And if you could find a rabbit in the Cambrian, you'd stop the ToE in its tracks.
Yes I have heard this mantra before.

No, that would not be enough. We have already found many anomalies in oop art that could stop ToE in its tracks, but what neo Darwinist do is just claim that they are hoaxes. Thats how the deal works. In fact someone actually did find trilobites on the bottom of fossilized sandals. He tried to tell anyone who would listen but the experts wrote them off before they even saw the evidence. The refutation was that they must be a hoax because everyone knows humans were not around during the Cambrian era and after all the guy was a Christian. You know, those guys like Newton,Mendel,Pasture,Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo. We have also found 2 million year anatomically correct human foot prints. The Neo Darwinst simply say that they must be from australopithecine, even though their feet had aboral features and looked nothing like ours. We have also found dinosaurs with soft tissue and intact blood cells that are supposed to be 70 million years old. There is always away to to write if off. In the case of the dinosaur, the excuse is, we must have misunderstood the laws of physics. Understandably they dont have the backing of many physicist regarding that hypothesis.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/meister.html

Is this what you're talking about because it doesn't seem like the 'neo-darwinist' refutation has anything to do with 'australopithecine' and there certainly was no fossilized sandal.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #338

Post by Goat »

THEMAYAN wrote:
And if you could find a rabbit in the Cambrian, you'd stop the ToE in its tracks.
Yes I have heard this mantra before.

No, that would not be enough. We have already found many anomalies in oop art that could stop ToE in its tracks, but what neo Darwinist do is just claim that they are hoaxes. Thats how the deal works. In fact someone actually did find trilobites on the bottom of fossilized sandals. He tried to tell anyone who would listen but the experts wrote them off before they even saw the evidence. The refutation was that they must be a hoax because everyone knows humans were not around during the Cambrian era and after all the guy was a Christian. You know, those guys like Newton,Mendel,Pasture,Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo. We have also found 2 million year anatomically correct human foot prints. The Neo Darwinst simply say that they must be from australopithecine, even though their feet had aboral features and looked nothing like ours. We have also found dinosaurs with soft tissue and intact blood cells that are supposed to be 70 million years old. There is always away to to write if off. In the case of the dinosaur, the excuse is, we must have misunderstood the laws of physics. Understandably they dont have the backing of many physicist regarding that hypothesis.
Wow.. so much misinformation , I don't know where to start. Yes, we found 2 million year old anatomically correct footprints.. but those foot prints are not 'homo sapien sapien, but most likely from Homo ergaster , and it was 1.5 million years ago btw. .. and not from asustralopithecine .. so you are actually doing misinformation


Then,, of course, there is the misrepresentation of the flexible tissue found on the dinosaur. More information can be found here http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371_1.html

Then, of course there is the claims about astronomers ?? What the heck?? What do they have to toe with 'a scientific dissent from Darwinism'

One must wonder why the creationist must misrepresent things so much..


To sum up.

The vast majority of people on that list are not biologists.

A substantial number of the people on that list are 'Young earth creationists' .. I gave 20 from the number that were just in the UK.

Of the actual biologists, a number stated that the petition they signed was misrepresented, and they did accept evolution, and it was not in crisis, they just felt that more attention should be given to alternate ideas within evolution.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 10034
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 1223 times
Been thanked: 1621 times

Post #339

Post by Clownboat »

THEMAYAN wrote:RESPONSE TO CLOWN BOAT
Please, please, please explain to me how you would account for the diversity of life we see on this planet, both now and throughout the fossil record. I really want to know.

So far, this thread reminds me of having a child complain about "x" to another child and saying "x" is wrong and "y" is actually correct. When asked to explain "y", they just continue to complain about "x".

WHAT IS "Y"!
_________________


I already answered this question on previous post. I dont like to continually repeat myself. As for the fossil record, the Cambrian radiation event sometime called the Cambrian explosion which Produced a great diversity of life appeared globally within a geological blink of an eye, and this phyla first appear already within their own categories, classifications, & already in very complex forms without any known ancestors.
First off, this was directed at Pax (You have already failed at addressing how it happened, and I don't like to continually hear repeated claims that don't address the question).
Secondly, readers please note that THEMAYAN makes an assertion that the forms just appear without any how being noted like has been requested twice now.

Pax, would you care to give me your explanation as to the "how"?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

THEMAYAN
Student
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:29 am

Post #340

Post by THEMAYAN »

JOEYKNOTTHEAD wrote:

And if you could find a rabbit in the Cambrian, you'd stop the ToE in its tracks.
...
No, that would not be enough. We have already found many anomalies in oop art that could stop ToE in its tracks, but what neo Darwinist do is just claim that they are hoaxes.
Please present an example for analysis.
In the book Forbidden archeology Michael Cremo documents hundreds of different out of place artifacts that have been rejected and written off without proper study. Also look at the story of Dr Virginia Steen-McIntyre. Her career was ruined just for telling the truth based on the scientific methods she was trained to use.

http://www.earlyworld.de/forbidden_archeology.htm



THEMAYAN wrote:

Thats how the deal works. In fact someone actually did find trilobites on the bottom of fossilized sandals. He tried to tell anyone who would listen but the experts wrote them off before they even saw the evidence. The refutation was that they must be a hoax because everyone knows humans were not around during the Cambrian era and after all the guy was a Christian.
Please present documentation for analysis.
(The Miester tracks)http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/ancientma ... ister.html

According to Ernest C. Conrad Author of (Tripping Over a Trilobite: A Study of the Meister Tracks)
According to Ernest C. Conrad Author of (Tripping Over a Trilobite: Who is also cited in (talk origins) A Study of the Meister Tracks)According to evolutionary chronology, man did not appear on the scene until a half billion years after trilobites became extinct. If these prints prove to be valid, historical geology has another serious problem to solve.

I did not contact the other "fairly academic institution," U.C.L.A, because I could see, by studying the creationist photograph of the alleged "bootprint," that it resembled a print only superficially, much as the "Man in the Mountain" in New Hampshire superficially resembles a human face.


Notice that all this was extrapolated by looking at a photograph and not even wanting to go further by looking at the actual physical footprints. He like Glen Kuban arbitrarily decided that it was only a circumstance of superficial appearance. And now this is cited as the official opinion. Matter closed!! I thought you were supposed to study measure and test the actual physical evidence before coming to a conclusion.


THEMAYAN wrote:

You know, those guys like Newton,Mendel,Pasture,Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo.
You are aware that all those folks died before the formulation of the ToE, ain'tcha?
What does that have to do with anything? These were great scientist who believed in God and that he created everything and these men made great contributions to science. Many scientist today still go to church and believe that God created everything. In fact there are even some who are even theistic evolutionist. Your ToE response is a moot point. You have no evidence that they would have believed any different today. And may I add that this debate between telic origin and naturism was going on many centuries before Darwin. We can trace this debate going back to ancient Greeks.

Many of Darwin's ideas including natural selection were not his original ideas. These men were fully aware of the argument even in there time. Furthermore Darwin nor anybody else was able to provide empirical evidence for this theory and if you don't understand what empirical evidence means, then I suggest you look it up. I think it makes more sense to believe that the modern observation of a fine tuned universe would only furthermore validate their beliefs.

THEMAYAN wrote:

We have also found 2 million year anatomically correct human foot prints.
Please present documentation for analysis.


The 3.6 million year old Laetoli prints. They are indistinguishable from modern humans and do not show the arboreal features of australopithecine. But again since man living 3.6 million years ago would destroy the theory, then of course they have to belong to a Lucy like creature.

THEMAYAN wrote:

The Neo Darwinst simply say that they must be from australopithecine, even though their feet had arboreal features and looked nothing like ours.
Hopefully you'll present documentation as requested, and we can put these folks on the good path.


OK......
New Scientist, (97:172 [1982]). *Susman and *Stern of New York University carefully examined Lucy and said her thumb was apelike, her toes long and curved for tree climbing, and "she probably nested in the trees and lived like other monkeys"
Stern and Sussman write in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology (60:279-313):
"In summary, the knee of the small Hadar hominid shares with other australopithecines a marked obliquity of the femoral shaft relative to the bicondylar plane, but in all other respects it falls either outside the range of modern human variation (Tardieu, 1979) or barely within it (our analysis). Since, aside from the degree of valgus, the knee of the small Hadar hominid possesses no modern trait to a pronounced degree, and since many of these traits may not serve to specify the precise nature of the bipedality that was practiced, we must agree with Tardieu that the overall structure of the knee is compatible with a significant degree of arboreal locomotion." (p.298)
Dr. Charles Oxnard completed the most sophisticated computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that the australopithecines have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever, and are simply an extinct form of ape (Fossils, Teeth and Sex: New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, 1987).
Most evolutionists, including Johanson, insist that the footprints that Mary Leaky uncovered in "3 million year old" strata in Latoli were made by Australopithecus afarensis, though these prints are indistinguishable from those of modern man.
I am told that no australopithecine we know anything about could have made the Laetoli footprints, because even australopithecines which are much younger than the Laetoli footprints have clear apelike features. The only possible upright walker, A. afarensis, is known to have had a chimp foot with an opposable toe. One of the world's leading authorities on australopithecines, British anatomist, Solly Lord Zuckerman has concluded (based on specimens aged much younger than Lucy) that australopithecines do not belong in the family of man. He wrote "I myself remain totally unpersuaded. Almost always when I have tried to check the anatomical claims on which the status of Australopithecus is based, I have ended in failure." (Beyond the Ivory Tower, 1977, p. 77)


THEMAYAN wrote:

We have also found dinosaurs with soft tissue and intact blood cells that are supposed to be 70 million years old.
Please present documentation for analysis.


If I have to cite everything for you then is seems you haven't done your own homework. Soft tissue in dinos is now pretty common knowledge.
Analyses of Soft Tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex Suggest the Presence of Protein
Mary Higby Schweitzer,1,2,3* Zhiyong Suo,4 Recep Avci,4 John M. Asara,5,6 Mark A. Allen,7 Fernando Teran Arce,4,8 John R. Horner3
T. Rex Soft Tissue Found Preserved
Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News
March 24, 2005
It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils.
Let's call this the 1st Challenge.
All I see is a bunch of assertions with absolutely no supporting data.
Well you do now. And its one shot of Patron not Petron. You cant even seem to get that right. On this, please take my word for it. After all I am THEMAYAN.

_________________
151 Ways to Die (modified)

1 shot Bacardi 151 Rum
1 shot Evan Williams Sourmash
1 shot White Lightnin'
1 shot Petron Silver Tequila

Post Reply