Why do evolutionist lie?

Sender · Post by **Sender** » Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:24 pm

I really don't understand why evolutionist lie, short of trying to keep their bogus theory alive. How can anyone belive in evolution(macro)? Please enlighten me.

Sender · Post by **Sender** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:52 pm

jwu wrote:
Macro doesn't have any evidence.
What about the things i mentioned earlier, ERVs, cytochrome c, telomeres and so on?

Have you ever seen a dog give birth to a non dog?
That would disprove evolution, as it's saltationism instead.

There are no intermediate fossil eveidence to valiate any such claims.
How about these:

Since we are going to have to go over everything over the last 3 months (not your fault, webmaster, these things happen), we might as well start with that old claim "There are no transitional fossils". Here is a list of sources of transitionals I have compiled. It is not complete. It is restricted to series of transitional individuals that link one species to another or, a series of individuals that go from species to species linking genera, families, orders, and even class in the taxonominc ranking. Examples of classes are mammals and birds. Each is a class.

Transitional individuals from one class to another
1. Principles of Paleontology by DM Raup and SM Stanley, 1971, there are transitional series between classes. (mammals and reptiles are examples of a class)
2. HK Erben, Uber den Ursprung der Ammonoidea. Biol. Rev. 41: 641-658, 1966.

Transitional individuals from one order to another
1. C Teichert "Nautiloidea-Discorsorida" and "Actinoceratoidea" in Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology ed RC Moore, 1964
2. PR Sheldon, Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites. Nature 330: 561-563, 1987. Rigourous biometric study of the pygidial ribs of 3458 specimens of 8 generic lineages in 7 stratgraphic layers covering about 3 million years. Gradual evolution where at any given time the population was intermediate between the samples before it and after it.

Transitionals across genera:
1. Williamson, PG, Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Nature 293:437-443, 1981. Excellent study of "gradual" evolution is an extremely fine fossil record.

Transitional individuals in hominid lineage
1. CS Coon, The Origin of Races, 1962.
2. Wolpoff, 1984, Paleobiol., 10: 389-406

Transitional series from one family to another in foraminerfera
1. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/foram/foramintro.html
2. http://cushforams.niu.edu/Forams.htm

Reptiles to mammals
1. http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm

Speciation in the fossil record
1. McNamara KJ, Heterochrony and the evolution of echinoids. In CRC Paul and AB Smith (eds) Echinoderm Phylogeny and Evolutionary Biology, pp149-163, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1988 pg 140 of Futuyma.
2. Kellogg DE and Hays JD Microevolutionary patterns in Late Cenozoic Radiolara. Paleobiology 1: 150-160, 1975.

There are also transitional species. This is where you have species linking higher taxa. Often there are transitional individuals involved, although these may not be specifically described. An example of this is in the evolution of whales from land mammals.

Whale transition:
1. http://www.neoucom.edu/Depts/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm
2. http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm

(Kudos to lucaspa of christianforums for this list)

Please don't tell me you are going to say whales walked on land.

jwu · Post by **jwu** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:55 pm

Whales - no. Their ancestors - yes.

How about ERVs and cytochrome c? How are they not evidence for macroevolution? You keep ignoring them.

Sender · Post by **Sender** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 8:06 pm

jwu wrote:
Well which is it. Things happen slow and gradual as Darwin said, or in leaps, jumps, saltations as Gould said? Seems contradictary, or you changed from Darwinism. Your quotes are duely noted, but I prefer to go staright to the heart of the matter.
Gould's puncutated equilibrium states that evolution happens at varying speeds, but it doesn't state that it would happen that fast.

Saltationism is still way faster (like 1000-10.000 times) than what Gould proposed.

quote from our boy Stephen Jay Gould Harvard University: The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils
That's a mined quote, this TO article includes the full context:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html

again he said "The absent of fossil evidence for the intermediary stages...has been a persistant and nagging problem for ...evolution".

This one is addressed there:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/ ... rt1-3.html

By the way, the relative rarity of clear transitionals is exactly what Gould is addressing with PE. It's no wonder that he talks about it. That however doesn't make the extant transitionals which i listed above go away, and it doesn't refute the genetic evidence such as the ERVs and cytochrome c et cetera.

Here is a quote Dr. Colin Paterson, Palentologist, British Museum of Natural History in correspondence to Luther Sunderland quoted in Darwins Inigma 1988 pg 89. "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would have certain;y included them. I will lay it on the line-there is not one such fossil."
Addressed there:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

So don't use "there are ontermediate fossi;s as an arguement. The top dogs of you theory admit as such.
Well, i wouldn't consider out of context quotes and misrepresentations as evidence. Furthermore, even if they genuinely said such things, this still wouldn't make the things i listed above go away.

Sounds like "circular reasoning" to me.

"The evolutionary origin of bird is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved".(W.E. Swinton, British Museum of Natural Histry, London. <b>The largest collection of fossils in the world.</b>

We did not come form anything other than human. We did not come from a rock as EVOLUTIONIST do believe.

You can polish it up as much as you want. And some things you can deny, or, maybe you don't realize what your theory believes. Check it out and think for a moment. We are all intelligent people here. But the truth is guys we never came from a rock, we never have seen anything give birth to anything other than it's own species period. There are no intermediate fossil's, and all this is being taught in the class room.

Sender · Post by **Sender** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 8:14 pm

jwu wrote:Whales - no. Their ancestors - yes.

How about ERVs and cytochrome c? How are they not evidence for macroevolution? You keep ignoring them.

Who are the whale ancestor?

Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum said "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown ups. The theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless".

.
<b>.Automic Energy Commision</b> "Scientist who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling maybe be the biggest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact". Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, automic energy commision, USA.

jwu · Post by **jwu** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 8:15 pm

Sounds like "circular reasoning" to me.

How so?

"The evolutionary origin of bird is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved".(W.E. Swinton, British Museum of Natural Histry, London. The largest collection of fossils in the world

That quote is from 1960, prior to important work about archaeoperyx.

We did not come form anything other than human. We did not come from a rock as EVOLUTIONIST do believe.

What's that thing with "evolutionist" without "-s" at the end?
However, even many theistic evolutionists do believe that the first life was created by God or something like that. Furthermore...as already explained before, abiogenesis (and especially not evolution) doesn't state that we come from a rock in first instance, not anymore than digestion says we come from a rock.
Oh, and don't you believe we were made from dust? How is this any better?

We did not come form anything other than human. We did not come from a rock as EVOLUTIONIST do believe.

*1
A member of a species giving birth to a member of another species would disprove evolution! When are you going to drop that strawman?

There are no intermediate species, and all this is being taught in the class room.

Then why aren't any of the things listed transitionals?

Regarding ERVs at cetera, the silence is deafening.

Edit:
The quote at *1 should be this one instead. He already begun replying, so i don't edit it out completely:

But the truth is guys we never came from a rock, we never have seen anything give birth to anything other than it's own species period.

jwu · Post by **jwu** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 8:18 pm

upnorthfan wrote:
jwu wrote:Whales - no. Their ancestors - yes.

How about ERVs and cytochrome c? How are they not evidence for macroevolution? You keep ignoring them.
Who are the whale ancestor?

Hippopotamids.

Sender · Post by **Sender** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 8:19 pm

Regarding ERVs at cetera, the silence is deafening.[/quote] I busted out laughing when I read that. Serious. I appreciate humor.

What is your question? And lets finish my questions first please. Then we will move on yours.

Definition:
Cytochromes are generally membrane-bound proteins that contain heme groups and carry out electron transport. They are found in the mitochondrial inner membrane of eukaryotes, in the chloroplasts of plants, in photosynthetic microorganisms, and in bacteria.

The heme group is a highly conjugated ring system (which means its electrons are very mobile) surrounding an iron ion, which readily interconverts between the Fe2+ (reduced) and Fe3+ (oxidized) states. Cytochromes are thus capable of performing oxidation and reduction. Because the cytochromes (as well as other complexes) are held within membranes in an organized way, the redox reactions are carried out in the proper sequence for maximum efficiency.

Other membrane-bound and soluble complexes and cofactors are involved in the chain of redox reactions, with the additional net effect that protons are transported across the membrane. The resulting transmembrane proton gradient (protonmotive force) is used to power cellular processes that require energy (such as rotation of flagella, transport of molecules across the membrane, and synthesis of ATP).

Several kinds of cytochrome exist and can be distinguished by spectroscopy, exact structure of the heme group, inhibitor sensitivity, and reduction potential:

* Cytochrome a
* Cytochrome a3
* Cytochrome b
* Cytochrome c
* Cytochrome c1
* Cytochrome f

jwu · Post by **jwu** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 9:38 pm

What is your question?

How is cytochrome c not good evidence for common descent of humans and other primates, i.e. macroevolution?

Same question in regards to ERVs.

What is your question? And lets finish my questions first please.

Ok, what else do you want to know?

(i probably won't be able to respond for about one day)

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:44 pm

Saying we don't know, would suggest then their theory is taken on faith. That is why Creationist want evolution out of classrooms, or Creation back in. Because both seem to be religious in nature. You have to believe something happened that is unprovable. That is "faith" in my book.

You are changing the referent on what we don't know. I said we don't know what caused the Big Bang or what came before. For these things wer have no evidence. We are not taking anything on faith because we are not asserting something is true without any evidence.

As was already noted, for what happened after the Big Bang and that there was a Big Bang, we do have a good deal of evidence, so we are not taking the theory 'on faith' as you say.

The accusation that evolution and creationism are both 'faith systems' is an old accusation, but I do not see that there is any evidence to support the assertion. The theory of evolution was developed because of the evidence that had been found, and was developed in order to try and explain how the evidence got to be as we have found it.

Sender · Post by **Sender** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 11:46 pm

micatala wrote:

As was already noted, for what happened after the Big Bang and that there was a Big Bang, we do have a good deal of evidence, so we are not taking the theory 'on faith' as you say.

The accusation that evolution and creationism are both 'faith systems' is an old accusation, but I do not see that there is any evidence to support the assertion. The theory of evolution was developed because of the evidence that had been found, and was developed in order to try and explain how the evidence got to be as we have found it.

You are talking about what happens after the Big Bang, I want to know what happened before the Big Bang. How did that happen? What are the Laws? Where did the energy come from?

Also where did life come from? Was it a mineral from the ocean depths?

Addendum: If we evolved from apes, why are apes still here?

The peppered moth: What's up with that?

The modern horse coming from an ancient four toed horse" . Still in textbooks.

Birds coming from dinosaurs/reptiles. Still in textbooks.

Get those lies out!