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 Haeckels 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]

Pardon me Busk, but I must make a clarification to your post that Student responded to. There is no known limit on what one species of animal could evolve into given enough time and mutations. A type of Bacterium could eventually evolve into a completely different species which could continue to evolve into a separate genus, family, order, etc. It could conceivably become a chordate in the distant future for example. Life uses 4 basic building blocks in genomes, so there is no known limit on what each life form could evolve into...

Are we going to get technical here? A type of Bacterium could eventually evolve into a different species sure, but it will never evolve into a separate genus, family, order. It can never become a chordate no matter how long you give it, it might however evolve to a gill breathing swimmer that looks superficially like a chordate, but it would still be a bacterium, in the domain of bacteria; it can never be a fish, fishes are nested in the domain of Eukaryote.

The limit of evolution is that it must form a nested hierarchy. A tree splits at the leaf nodes, it can only form new branches at the tip of a parent branch; evolution cannot go back to the body of a branch and spout a new branch from the middle.

I suppose I am getting technical, but I believe my statements are entirely accurate. A bacterium is not limited to the domain of bacteria. There is nothing in the four DNA components of a bacteria that isn't exactly the same as the 4 components in any other DNA - adenine (A), guanine, (G), thymine (T) and cytosine (C). A bacteria can't turn into a fish, or a mammal, or a reptile, but it could turn into an animal that has gills, or has hair and feeds its young milk, or has scales and is cold blooded. It is not limited physically to remain in the bacteria family.

I mention this because I guarantee you Student read your remarks and thinks that a bacteria could never evolve into something that is no longer a bacteria, and that simply isn't true. A bacteria could become a different order of animal in the future...

[Bust Nak]

I suppose I am getting technical, but I believe my statements are entirely accurate. A bacterium is not limited to the domain of bacteria.

I think you are misusing terminologies. A bacterium will always be limited to the domain of bacteria. What they are not limited to is being unicellular microorganisms. While all bacteria today are unicellular microorganisms, one day they might become very different, but that doesn't stop them from being bacteria.

There is nothing in the four DNA components of a bacteria that isn't exactly the same as the 4 components in any other DNA - adenine (A), guanine, (G), thymine (T) and cytosine (C). A bacteria can't turn into a fish, or a mammal, or a reptile, but it could turn into an animal that has gills, or has hair and feeds its young milk, or has scales and is cold blooded.

Well, no, it could never turn into an animal that has gills, or has hair and feeds its young milk, or has scales and is cold blooded. Animals are Eukaryotes, bacteria are Prokaryotes. What bacteria could turn into, are bacteria that have gills, or hair and feeds its young "milk," or scales and cold blooded.

It is not limited physically to remain in the bacteria family.

No, it is actually limited physically to remain in the bacteria domain. We could reclassify existing families in different ways, but that's just an exercise in taxonomy. Actually evolving new families is not possible. That would involve going back down the tree of life, away from the leaf nodes, and somehow spawning a new branches from the middle of a tree. That would mean going back in time! We can only ever get new species, because species exist at the tips of the evolution tree, the only place where evolution can occur.

I mention this because I guarantee you Student read your remarks and thinks that a bacteria could never evolve into something that is no longer a bacteria, and that simply isn't true. A bacteria could become a different order of animal in the future...

I don't doubt creationists will latch onto that and think a single cell organism will always remain a single cell organism, but that's no reason to sly away from the correct terminology: animals are members of the kingdom Animalia. A bacteria could never evolve into something that is no longer a bacteria. A bacteria could become a bacteria that looks very much like an animal, with fur or gills, or maybe even both, but it will never be an animal.

As an example of what I mean, Pigeons produce "crop milk" for their young, but they are not mammals and never will become mammals, despite their evolved ability to produce milk to feed their young.

Another example are bats, in spite of their superficial similarity with birds, they are not birds, and will never evolve into birds no matter how much more bats and birds converge in physical form.

What you are suggesting here, is akin to chimpanzee evolving into human. The split has already happened, chimpanzees may well evolve in to a tall, upright, smart and hairless ape that looks superficially like us, but it will never be human.

We need to hammer this point home to creationists, having such misconceptions about evolution is what leads to "show us a cat giving birth to a dog" style challenges.

[H.sapiens]

Pardon me Busk, but I must make a clarification to your post that Student responded to. There is no known limit on what one species of animal could evolve into given enough time and mutations. A type of Bacterium could eventually evolve into a completely different species which could continue to evolve into a separate genus, family, order, etc. It could conceivably become a chordate in the distant future for example. Life uses 4 basic building blocks in genomes, so there is no known limit on what each life form could evolve into...

Are we going to get technical here? A type of Bacterium could eventually evolve into a different species sure, but it will never evolve into a separate genus, family, order. It can never become a chordate no matter how long you give it, it might however evolve to a gill breathing swimmer that looks superficially like a chordate, but it would still be a bacterium, in the domain of bacteria; it can never be a fish, fishes are nested in the domain of Eukaryote.

The limit of evolution is that it must form a nested hierarchy. A tree splits at the leaf nodes, it can only form new branches at the tip of a parent branch; evolution cannot go back to the body of a branch and spout a new branch from the middle.

You are using a cladistic view of evolution (one that I happen to agree with) but one that most non-taxonomists have trouble grasping. Let me recommend this to those who can't see it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics

[Kenisaw]

I suppose I am getting technical, but I believe my statements are entirely accurate. A bacterium is not limited to the domain of bacteria.

I think you are misusing terminologies. A bacterium will always be limited to the domain of bacteria. What they are not limited to is being unicellular microorganisms. While all bacteria today are unicellular microorganisms, one day they might become very different, but that doesn't stop them from being bacteria.

It does if they no longer fit within the defined bacteria spectrum. If a particular species of bacterium evolves a spinal column, it is no longer a bacterium, because bacterium do not have spinal columns.

There is nothing in the four DNA components of a bacteria that isn't exactly the same as the 4 components in any other DNA - adenine (A), guanine, (G), thymine (T) and cytosine (C). A bacteria can't turn into a fish, or a mammal, or a reptile, but it could turn into an animal that has gills, or has hair and feeds its young milk, or has scales and is cold blooded.

Well, no, it could never turn into an animal that has gills, or has hair and feeds its young milk, or has scales and is cold blooded. Animals are Eukaryotes, bacteria are Prokaryotes. What bacteria could turn into, are bacteria that have gills, or hair and feeds its young "milk," or scales and cold blooded.[/quote]

If a bacterium species evolves to have a nucleus enclosing its DNA, what does that make it?

It is not limited physically to remain in the bacteria family.

No, it is actually limited physically to remain in the bacteria domain. We could reclassify existing families in different ways, but that's just an exercise in taxonomy. Actually evolving new families is not possible. That would involve going back down the tree of life, away from the leaf nodes, and somehow spawning a new branches from the middle of a tree. That would mean going back in time! We can only ever get new species, because species exist at the tips of the evolution tree, the only place where evolution can occur.

I see no reason why a new family cannot evolve. It does not have to come from the same line as the chordates. It can come from any living thing given the right mutations and selective pressures.

I mention this because I guarantee you Student read your remarks and thinks that a bacteria could never evolve into something that is no longer a bacteria, and that simply isn't true. A bacteria could become a different order of animal in the future...

I don't doubt creationists will latch onto that and think a single cell organism will always remain a single cell organism, but that's no reason to sly away from the correct terminology: animals are members of the kingdom Animalia. A bacteria could never evolve into something that is no longer a bacteria. A bacteria could become a bacteria that looks very much like an animal, with fur or gills, or maybe even both, but it will never be an animal.[/quote]

Right, but it doesn't have to be a bacterium. It's ANCESTOR will always be a bacterium, but it could evolve into a new and different family that is no longer considered a bacterium

As an example of what I mean, Pigeons produce "crop milk" for their young, but they are not mammals and never will become mammals, despite their evolved ability to produce milk to feed their young.

Yes, but that is because they share the vast majority of commonalities that all bird share. If they continued to evolve in such a way that they lost their feathers, limbs, grew scales, and crawled on the ground, they would no longer be called birds. They would not be called snakes either because they are not related to snakes. They'd be given a brand new name.

Another example are bats, in spite of their superficial similarity with birds, they are not birds, and will never evolve into birds no matter how much more bats and birds converge in physical form.

Right. I think you and I are splitting hairs over the same thing.

What you are suggesting here, is akin to chimpanzee evolving into human. The split has already happened, chimpanzees may well evolve in to a tall, upright, smart and hairless ape that looks superficially like us, but it will never be human.

Agreed. It will be a new species if some populations of chimps still remain, or the same species but evolutionary changed over time if no chimps remain.

We need to hammer this point home to creationists, having such misconceptions about evolution is what leads to "show us a cat giving birth to a dog" style challenges.

Couldn't agree more.

[H.sapiens]

It does if they no longer fit within the defined bacteria spectrum. If a particular species of bacterium evolves a spinal column, it is no longer a bacterium, because bacterium do not have spinal columns.

There is the problem in a nutshell. To a "conventional" taxonomist, no bacterium will ever have a backbone. To a cladist (where all the daughter taxons nest inside their successive parents) all vertebrates ARE bacteria. Maybe these lecture notes from Colombia will help: http://rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu/courses/v1001/5.html

[Bust Nak]

If a bacterium species evolves to have a nucleus enclosing its DNA, what does that make it?

A mutant bacteria with nucleus enclosing its DNA. We would also need to stick a footnote in the definition eukaryote to explicitly exclude this new species.

Right, but it doesn't have to be a bacterium. It's ANCESTOR will always be a bacterium, but it could evolve into a new and different family that is no longer considered a bacterium.

How we consider it, doesn't change where a species lies in the tree of life. This is what I was referring to as an "exercise in taxonomy." You might have heard professor PZ Myers, an out spoken evolutionist affirms that human beings are still fish, much to the amusement of many creationists. They laugh, but they don't understand his underlying point, we have to keep bringing this up until they get it.

Yes, but that is because they share the vast majority of commonalities that all bird share. If they continued to evolve in such a way that they lost their feathers, limbs, grew scales, and crawled on the ground, they would no longer be called birds.

We gave modern day descendants of avian dinosaurs a different name, we call them birds, it's not very common to refer them as dinosaurs. But are birds dinosaurs, or are have they stopped being dinosaurs?

I think you and I are splitting hairs over the same thing.

We are splitting hairs, and I insist that we split hairs my way. To say dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds or birds are the descendants of dinosaurs, is to say birds ARE dinosaurs.

[Replying to post 300 by H.sapiens]
Right, nature have produced an existing hierarchy and it only make sense that we adopt it. Taxonomy should match the tree of life, rather than fit life into artificial categories of our making.

[Kenisaw]

It does if they no longer fit within the defined bacteria spectrum. If a particular species of bacterium evolves a spinal column, it is no longer a bacterium, because bacterium do not have spinal columns.

There is the problem in a nutshell. To a "conventional" taxonomist, no bacterium will ever have a backbone. To a cladist (where all the daughter taxons nest inside their successive parents) all vertebrates ARE bacteria. Maybe these lecture notes from Colombia will help: http://rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu/courses/v1001/5.html

True. The bottom line though is that given enough time and evolutionary pressure, any living thing can evolve enough to the point where they no longer fit the definition of what they used to be considered. How we group them or what we call them doesn't change that underlying possibility.

[Kenisaw]

If a bacterium species evolves to have a nucleus enclosing its DNA, what does that make it?

A mutant bacteria with nucleus enclosing its DNA. We would also need to stick a footnote in the definition eukaryote to explicitly exclude this new species.

Of course. We'd have a new line of nucloid, but it would not be a eukaryotes.

Right, but it doesn't have to be a bacterium. It's ANCESTOR will always be a bacterium, but it could evolve into a new and different family that is no longer considered a bacterium.

How we consider it, doesn't change where a species lies in the tree of life. This is what I was referring to as an "exercise in taxonomy." You might have heard professor PZ Myers, an out spoken evolutionist affirms that human beings are still fish, much to the amusement of many creationists. They laugh, but they don't understand his underlying point, we have to keep bringing this up until they get it.

Right. We agree with each other, I think I my have confused you with my original terminology.

Yes, but that is because they share the vast majority of commonalities that all bird share. If they continued to evolve in such a way that they lost their feathers, limbs, grew scales, and crawled on the ground, they would no longer be called birds.

We gave modern day descendants of avian dinosaurs a different name, we call them birds, it's not very common to refer them as dinosaurs. But are birds dinosaurs, or are have they stopped being dinosaurs?

Semantics in my mind. My opinion is that they are not dinosaurs just like dinosaurs weren't reptiles. If we can call birds "dinosaurs" we could call them "reptiles" just as easily.

I think you and I are splitting hairs over the same thing.

We are splitting hairs, and I insist that we split hairs my way. To say dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds or birds are the descendants of dinosaurs, is to say birds ARE dinosaurs.

Then say birds are the last common ancestor. Why stop at dinosaurs?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 291 by Kenisaw]

Except there are 7 billion people on the planet. Add up those 60 that each person has and suddenly you are talking about a dozen mutations AT EACH SITE OF THE GENOME in each generation. That's a lot of mutations. That doesn't count the mutations that were so lethal that a human died in utero and wasn't even born.

Why are you speaking about mutations as though they are responsible for the 8 billion people on the planet?
Where is your evidence to support this?
The experiments done were on fruit flies and cattle, and the results were fruit flies and cattle, many in really bad shape - like ...
You have no evidence to show, to say that mutations were responsible for the variety of organisms on earth - including humans.

No, not in 100 years of research. But there is no evidence anywhere that evolution has ever worked that fast. To expect to see it happen live in just one human lifetime is an impossible standard. Evolution doesn't work that fast, so saying a fly didn't turn into a bird is NOT an argument because everyone that knows anything about evolution would tell you that isn't going to happen. Of course your creationist websites whine about it, which you parroted here in your post, but as I said everyone that knows anything doesn't make such a basic mistake...

Firstly, I don't need creationist to tell me anything.
Secondly, I like to do my own research, which is what I do.
Thirdly, 98% of the information I posted is not from creationist websites, but from general information websites, scientific websites, or sites having a biased leaning toward evolution.
Fourth, Those site are the ones that admit the information I posted, which is why you cannot dispute it, as being false.
Fifth, you are the one using evolution websites, to try to establish your belief.
Sixth, I am no idiot, or two year old, who needs someone to think for me.
Seventh, that's it...

You've been told all this before by the way, so I find it dishonest of you to make claims about it with Bust Nak when I've already shown you the errors of your understanding...

I made a post, you, and everyone else kept silent, Bust Nak responded - again demonstrating his honesty, but it made me wonder, if he had now become the spokesman for everyone.
I'm taking it up with whoever.
Now that you have responded, I will take it up with you.

I said, Mutations can never be responsible for the complexity of life.
That's what I said.

If you have already shown me the errors of my understanding, then try and try again.
Maybe you might succeed, because I am not seeing them.

You can see the genetic remains of the LUCA in the genomes of all living things.

You can see the evolution of species into new ones in the fossil record, AND in the genomes of all living things...

No I cannot.
I can see the work of a master designer, in the blueprint of life.
I never saw a brick building build itself.
Nor have I ever seen code write itself.
Quite the opposite, I have seen someone write code.

Let someone experienced in that, confirm it to you...
Bill Gates, The Road Ahead

DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.

If you have ever studied code, you would know it is a highly complex language.
It is not ABC.

There is no way in science, that it is possible for language - written code to create itself.
There is no scientifically possible way for random chance to create or lead to a complex written code in a complex system, to produce other complex systems in complex organisms.

But please, by all means, tell us why evolution violates thermodynamics...

Entropy is the measure of disorder and randomness in a system.
The starting point is the most organized you can get.
So say you start at a point of randomness or disorder, you can never reach a point of order. You can only end up with more disorder.

So when you say this.

Second, yes we can say with 100% certainly that life can happen via "blind chance". There is nothing about life that violates any law of the universe. Everything about life is chemically possible. We don't know how it specifically happened, but we do know it is possible. Please retract your statement.

That is wrong, because there are some laws that cannot be broken.

Thermodynamics, being one of them.

You never responded.
Why ask a question, and when you get an answer, you say nothing.
I would have been glad to receive a response.
In fact, I would still welcome a response, so feel free to do so.

That's not too complex for you, is it?
Let me try to simplify it.
DNA

Structure of DNA
DNA is comprised of chains of chemical subunits called nucleotides, each of which contains one nitrogenous base: adenine (A ), thymine (T ), cytosine (C ), or guanine (G ). The design instructions in DNA are spelled out as particular sequences of these four bases. This is analogous to conveying instructions in printed books by particular arrangements of the twenty-six letters of the alphabet. In the case of genes, however, there are only four letters in the alphabet. Hundreds of nucleotides are linked in a DNA chain in a sequence that spells out instructions for a single gene.

Control of gene expression
DNA information is expressed as proteins and their feedback networks. The information resident in nucleotide sequences is used not only for replicating DNA, but also for synthesizing proteins. Proteins are chains of a few hundred subunits called amino acids, of which there are twenty kinds. The amino acids in a protein are arranged in a specific sequence by cellular machinery that translates the genetic information coded in DNA. The sequence of nucleotides, read three at a time, corresponds to the sequence of amino acids in a protein. The amino acids differ among themselves in chemical character so that every kind of protein differs in chemical character from others. For the work of the human body many thousands of proteins are needed, each having a highly specific function like catalyzing a chemical reaction or transporting oxygen.

Differentiation into specialized cells requires the control of gene expression. The development of a human being starts with a single-celled, fertilized egg. As the egg divides into two cells, and as successive rounds of cell division occur, every progeny cell receives a complete copy of parental DNA. In the first few divisions, the cells produced are identical in all observable characteristics, but as cell division continues, cells are produced that differ in phenotype even though all the cells continue to have identical DNA. In this differentiation, particular genes are controlled by blocking their expression, not by changing nucleotide sequence. Regulatory molecules block particular sites in DNA preventing translation of the corresponding genes into their products. Specific blocking thus generates different patterns of gene expression. Changing patterns of gene expression produce distinct populations of cells, diverging in phenotype as differentiation progresses. Eventually, differentiation in humans produces more than two hundred cell types, organized into different tissues and organs. In any one cell type the majority of its approximately 35,000 genes is repressed, leaving a small subset of expressed genes that differs from the subsets expressed in other cell types.

DNA: Definition, Structure & Discovery

Deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA is a molecule that contains the instructions an organism needs to develop, live and reproduce. These instructions are found inside every cell, and are passed down from parents to their children.

DNA structure
DNA is made up of molecules called nucleotides. Each nucleotide contains a phosphate group, a sugar group and a nitrogen base. The four types of nitrogen bases are adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G) and cytosine (C). The order of these bases is what determines DNA's instructions, or genetic code. Similar to the way the order of letters in the alphabet can be used to form a word, the order of nitrogen bases in a DNA sequence forms genes, which in the language of the cell, tells cells how to make proteins. Another type of nucleic acid, ribonucleic acid, or RNA, translates genetic information from DNA into proteins.

The entire human genome contains about 3 billion bases and about 20,000 genes.

Awesome!

Let's take that last bit on nucleotides...
If I am quoting a creationist website, get used to the fact that you have opposition.
I am simply presentation what has already been stated. Deal with it
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/02/th ... 03194.html.

And so I say again - no root - no start to evolution.
And again - Mutations can never be responsible for the complexity of life.

[Replying to post 292 by Kenisaw]
Also, on this one

There is no known limit on what one species of animal could evolve into given enough time and mutations. A type of Bacterium could eventually evolve into a completely different species which could continue to evolve into a separate genus, family, order, etc. It could conceivably become a chordate in the distant future for example. Life uses 4 basic building blocks in genomes, so there is no known limit on what each life form could evolve into...

I have a few questions:
How can mutations be responsible for evolution?
Can evolution work without reproduction?
Are you saying that species turn into other species?
If so, can you provide evidence of that?

Note*
I have seen the results of the fruit fly experience.
I am not referring to fly species into another fly species.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 296 by Kenisaw]

Fossils and sequenced genomes are invisible? That's a fascinating reply. I have material evidence, Student. You can view them and study them and draw your own conclusions, but the empirical data is very real.

Oh, the unreliable fossils record?
Or do you mean the Cambrian explosion which generated extensive scientific debate, and that Darwin feared as one of the main objections that could be made against the theory of evolution by natural selection?
The one which they finally found a plaster to patch?
They are always finding a plaster to patch every wound.

They can keep that one for now, with the few that gives them a sense of comfort.
I have no doubt they will soon "find" the patch to establish that we came from rocks.

By the way, in case it was never mentioned, have you noticed that you can't prove god by disproving evolution? Most believers don't seem to realize this, and I was just curious if you had...

I consider that so silly, I can tell you that no Christian on these forums have ever tried such folly.
We already proved God.
It's scientists that haven't disproved him, because God can't be falsified. Have you forgotten?
That's an idea that comes up in the mind of unbelievers who are trying so desperately hard, not to allow a divine foot in the door.
Speaking of desperate, we are not like Darwin and his fellow workers...

Have you ever been to Costa Rica?
Let's take a trip then. An imagery one.

Let us say, for example, a group of you learned that there was a treasure 200 yards out to sea at Playa Hermosa in the tony region of Santa Teresa.
Someone in the group said to you, "Man, don't go out there. There are sharks out there. Sharks."
Sharks in Santa Teresa? No one aint never seen no shark in Santa Teresa.
The next day while at the beach in Santa Teresa, someone pointed out two shark fins about roughly 200 yards offshore.
Where did those sharks come from?

A week after, you learned that the shark fins you saw, were really fins used by some in the group, who wanted to convince you that there really were sharks in the water.
The whole objective - prevent you from searching for any treasure.
So they used a hoax, in order to get you to believe a lie.

Would you trust someone who tried to deceive you into believing something they claimed to be true?

Well, they caught Darwin red handed - at least once.
Seeking to deceive the public into believing his theory (lie).

hoax
Something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage

Piltdown Man

The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological hoax in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human. These fragments consisted of those parts of a skull said to have been collected beginning in 1908, with an alleged accompanying jawbone added later, from a gravel pit at Piltdown, East Sussex, England. It was given the Latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni ("Dawson's dawn-man", after the hoaxer/collector Charles Dawson acquired and exhibited the specimens). The questionable significance of the assemblage remained the subject of considerable controversy until it was conclusively exposed in 1953 as a forgery. It was found to have consisted of the altered mandible and some teeth of an orangutan deliberately combined with the cranium of a fully developed, though small-brained, modern human.

The Piltdown hoax is prominent for two reasons: the attention it generated around the subject of human evolution, and the length of time, 45 years, that elapsed from its alleged initial discovery to its definitive exposure as a composite forgery.

Timeline[edit]

• 1908: Dawson claims discovery of first Piltdown fragments.
• 1912 February: Dawson contacts Woodward about first skull fragments.
• 1912 June: Dawson, Woodward, and Teilhard de Chardin form digging team.
• 1912 June: Team finds elephant molar, skull fragment.
• 1912 June: Right parietal skull bones and the jaw bone discovered.
• 1912 November: News breaks in the popular press.
• 1912 December: Official presentation of Piltdown man.
• 1913: David Waterston concludes the sample to be an ape mandible and a human skull.
• 1914: Talgai skull (Australia) found, considered, at the time, to confirm Piltdown.
• 1915: Marcellin Boule concludes the sample to be an ape mandible and a human skull. Gerrit Smith Miller concludes the jaw is from a fossil ape.
• 1923: Franz Weidenreich reports the remains consist of a modern human cranium and orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth.
• 1925: Edmonds reports Piltdown geology error. Report ignored.
• 1943: Fluorine content test is first proposed.
• 1948: The Earliest Englishman by Woodward is published (posthumously).
• 1949: Fluorine content test establishes Piltdown man as relatively recent.
• 1953: Weiner, Le Gros Clark, and Oakley expose the hoax.
• 2003: Full nature of Charles Dawson's career in fakes is exposed.

Calaveras Skull

The Calaveras Skull was a human skull found by miners in Calaveras County, California, which was purported to prove that humans, mastodons, and elephants had coexisted in California. It was later revealed to be a hoax.

Nebraska Man

Nebraska Man was a name applied to Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, a putative species of ape. Hesperopithecus meant "ape of the western world," and it was heralded as the first higher primate of North America. Haroldcookii was given as the species name in reference to the original discoverer of the tooth, Harold Cook. It was originally described by Henry Fairfield Osborn in 1922, on the basis of a tooth that rancher and geologist Harold Cook found in Nebraska in 1917. The discovery was made around ten years after the finding of Piltdown Man, another possible human ancestor that turned out to be a hoax. Although Nebraska man was not a deliberate hoax, the original classification proved to be a mistake.

Flamboyant anthropologist falsified dating of key discoveries

It appeared to be one of archaeology's most sensational finds. The skull fragment discovered in a peat bog near Hamburg was more than 36,000 years old - and was the vital missing link between modern humans and Neanderthals.

This, at least, is what Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten - a distinguished, cigar-smoking German anthropologist - told his scientific colleagues, to global acclaim, after being invited to date the extremely rare skull.

However, the professor's 30-year-old academic career has now ended in disgrace after the revelation that he systematically falsified the dates on this and numerous other "stone age" relics.

Why would someone who was telling the truth, need to deceive you into believing it?
Unless they were lying, in the first place.

Why would I trust these men.

The Bible writers have never been known to use fraud.
The Bible is 100% truthful, and the fact is, it can never change.
After all, it is from a God of truth.
That's good enough reason for me to trust it.

For example
Psalm 139:16

Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, And in your book all its parts were down in writing, As regards the days when they were formed And there was not yet one among them.

Who else could have been responsible for writing the genetic code for every living thing.

Surely... Not evolution.

Mutations? HA. What a joke.