Jump to content


Photo

Critique My Argument Against Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

#21 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 04 February 2018 - 10:07 AM

BlitzKing, you seem to assign malice to evolutionists, but that isn't always accurate. Yes I know that some of them are indeed filled with hate, but certainly not all, and I'm not sure the percentage would even be high.

Atheist (who must all be evolutionist by definition) say religion is a crutch, and religious belief is weakness so they're eager to reject anything like religious belief. How ironic then to identify the belief that there is no God as itself religious in nature. But it is. And I think it's fear that drives it, which is sometimes manifested as hate.

I was delighted when I read the FAQ at the Discovery Institute that says

Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text.


I cite or paraphrase this frequently, but atheists very frequently respond by demanding to know who the designer could possibly be. That is, they seem to want to skip the science and go straight to the implication so they can reject any path of inquiry that might bring results they fear. I only know of two answers: aliens (which few people find satisfying) or God. They absolutely can't tolerate finding evidence of God so they reject the science that could take them there. (The fact that the design of their own physical bodies betrays their deeply held belief doesn't help.)

BTW, the FAQ continues,

Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? It is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

They earlier defined "creationism" as being "focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, ...".


You also seem to assign ignorance to those who promote evolution. I can see the reasons to do that, but I hesitate to do it and I think you should too. Living organisms are extremely complex. We can't defend things that are too poorly understood to explain. And the conflating of micro- and macro-evolution is genuinely confusing, difficult to untangle and probably not always done on purpose. It has led many intelligent people astray.

Take that eloquently vociferous evolutionist Kenneth Miller. He claims to be a Christian. Do you honestly think he's ignorant? I think he's been deceived. If he ever stops to ponder the probability that a natural process could produce even one gene for one protein I think he'll wake up and advocate ID.

#22 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,051 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 04 February 2018 - 01:20 PM

I've developed an argument against evolution that I've decided is my favorite. Am I wrong? Please tell me what's wrong with it.
---------------------

Many (all?) animals have proteins that were not in the ancestor they are purported to have evolved from. So evolution must have provided new genes, new information.

i believe that the cell already contained this "information" but in an "inactive" form.
epigentics and transposons can "create novel genes" where none existed before.
it isn't unreasonable to assume that some of these genes could code for novel proteins.

i also believe that this is an issue of abiogenesis rather than evolution.
the epigenetic code most certainly evolved along with the DNA strand.
this brings up 2 intriguing issues:
1. how did transposons come to have tags?
some transoposons encode their own transcriptase, and these tell the transposons where to insert themselves.
2. how on earth did the cell ever acquire a "restart" scenario?

furthermore i question whether the cell has undergone any darwinian type of evolution.
darwinian evolution, the slow additions/progressive, where organisms gradually "become perfected".

you must remember that the definition of gene is one of context, not something chiseled in stone.

#23 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 04 February 2018 - 01:24 PM

 

Fourth:  All of the more dubious claims of evolution were exposed by evolutionists.  Piltdown man comes to mind here.

You'd think if evolutionary theory was so fragile and soaked in conspiracy, with creationists holding all the ace cards then they would be the first to tear down any obvious falsehoods, yet the integrity of the discipline is always maintained by evolutionary biologist themselves.


Creationists and ID proponents see the whole of evolution as dubious and false, but evolutionists reject everything they say. Lucy has been called out as a fraud, but does any evolutionist care? So it's only possible for an evolutionist to do the job.

 

 

Do you believe Lucy is a fraud ? If so, how ?



#24 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 04 February 2018 - 01:43 PM

Over "500 Million Years" while SOME Jellyfish "evolved" into a.... Human... OTHER jellyfish "evolved" into a .....JELLYFISH!!!??  :burp:


Still persisting with this line I see...

I called you out on this on another thread
http://evolutionfair...ntlement/page-2
 
....but as usual you ignored it
 
Perhaps you'll attempt a response this time ?
 

 

"Do you REALLY expect any sane person to believe that over the course of "500 million years" while SOME jellyfish were "evolving into humans" OTHER jellyfish were evolving into... Jellyfish?????? Please dont insult your own intelligence..


Perhaps you can start with providing a source that even suggests that humans (or any other animal for that matter, apart from jellyfish) evolved from jellyfish.

Then explain why the group we call jellyfish can’t possibly have had a representative existing 500 million years ago according to evolutionary theory.

For bonus points explain how your flood managed to bury and preserve something so delicate and unlikely to fossilize as a jellyfish but failed to preserve any fish or benthic organisms such as any modern looking sea urchins or starfish in the Cambrian layers.

 



#25 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 04 February 2018 - 02:53 PM

i believe that the cell already contained this "information" but in an "inactive" form.
epigentics and transposons can "create novel genes" where none existed before.
it isn't unreasonable to assume that some of these genes could code for novel proteins.


Already contained information, but inactive?? If it was already there, that doesn't solve the problem, it just moves it to an earlier timeframe. Where did the information originally come from? The probability of just selecting the right content in the right order for a 100-codon gene is still a few in 10130.

Also, creating novel genes is an act of intelligence if it creates a gene that's actually needed to do a specific task, as opposed to novel artwork.
 

i also believe that this is an issue of abiogenesis rather than evolution.


I don't understand the distinction. If you insist on separating them, how can you have one without the other? But alright, whatever you want to call it is fine. How could any natural process beat the odds in a trillion trillion trillion trillion years, let alone a few billion?
 

furthermore i question whether the cell has undergone any darwinian type of evolution.
darwinian evolution, the slow additions/progressive, where organisms gradually "become perfected".


I'm addressing the addition of a new protein, therefore a new gene. Are you saying a gene could be added by a natural process OTHER than Darwinian evolution?

As for Darwinian evolution, how can the slow additions/progressive gradual perfection of an organism develop a protein? Most organisms which are simpler than man have a smaller genome than man, which usually means thousands fewer genes. Where did all those new genes come from? You CAN'T build a gene by "numerous, successive, slight modifications" because the proteins which are coded by the genes either work or they don't. Natural selection has no way of knowing a particular protein is 95% right because it would function no better than a 0% right gene. That's my understanding, and I've seen no counter claims.

This is one of the main problems with evolution. And it's something Darwin had zero information about. Genes are immune to slow progress.

#26 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 04 February 2018 - 03:18 PM

Do you believe Lucy is a fraud ? If so, how ?


The bones they found were no doubt real. But they didn't find a full skeleton. No feet, no hands, only a few scraps of a skull. The analysis that determined it stood upright was based on the angle of one knee joint. How do we know this one specimen wasn't irregular or deformed? They read an AWFUL LOT into the tiny bit of information available. They saw what they wanted to see. There's a name for that, but I forget it.

Some other expert said it was probably just an ape.

Also, dating techniques for anything more than about 5000 years old is very dubious. For one thing, everything that lived before the worldwide flood (probably 5000 years ago) was buried in thoroughly disturbed ground.

#27 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 04 February 2018 - 04:24 PM

 

Do you believe Lucy is a fraud ? If so, how ?


The bones they found were no doubt real. But they didn't find a full skeleton. No feet, no hands, only a few scraps of a skull. The analysis that determined it stood upright was based on the angle of one knee joint. How do we know this one specimen wasn't irregular or deformed? They read an AWFUL LOT into the tiny bit of information available. They saw what they wanted to see. There's a name for that, but I forget it.

 


Why would there be the need to assume the knee joint deformed just because it fits the morphology of a transitional species ? Even if it was deformed and the conclusion of bipedality was incorrect because of that, then that is just unfortunate, not fraud. In any case, the conclusion of bipedality is based on a lot more than just the knee joint because there are many other specimens of afarensis, with evidence from various foot bones, pelvis, femur and position of the spinal chord attachment to the skull. Plus the Laetoli footprints of course.
 

Also, dating techniques for anything more than about 5000 years old is very dubious.


Well you would say that wouldn't you. Of course you have no reason for claiming that other than having a prior commitment to a literal Genesis no matter what. There are dozens of dating methods that go way beyond 5000 yrs, but they're all wrong and the scientists who devised them and the researchers who seem to get consistent and sensible results using them are all fooling themselves, right ?
 

For one thing, everything that lived before the worldwide flood (probably 5000 years ago) was buried in thoroughly disturbed ground.


Most YEC would say that the geological strata that hominin fossils are found in are post Flood (Cretaceous is normally given as the final flood strata)



#28 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 February 2018 - 04:28 PM

 

 

 Wibble: Plus the Laetoli footprints of course.

 

Human footprints, Lucy's skeleton had no feet, and was only 40% skeleton.

 

Is this more of that evolutionist honesty? :rolleyes:

 

And as I posted fairly recently, they have now confirmed much older human footprints, around the 5 million year mark. Sure, you can believe they belonged to pithecines by faith if you want but don't pretend that human prints belonged to apes without proof.

 

https://creation.com..._3/j19_3_13.pdf

 

So the article ends with, "this human footprint is either a. from a pithecine, or b. an unknown creature".

 

Wow, what logic from evolutionists, that the possibility of a human footprint being made by a human is not regarded as a possibility even though the chances a human print came from a human, the only biped with that type of print, is, oh......say......1 in 1.

 

:get_a_clue: 



#29 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 04 February 2018 - 04:52 PM

 

Wibble: Plus the Laetoli footprints of course.[/font]

 
Human footprints, Lucy's skeleton had no feet, and was only 40% skeleton.[/font]
 
Is this more of that evolutionist honesty? :rolleyes:

 


Roll your eyes as much as you want, as I have already mentioned we don't only have 'Lucy' for skeletal evidence, there are dozens of specimens. And A. afarensis is the only hominin fossil found anywhere near Laetoli, so seems the most likely candidate for those tracks.
 

And as I posted fairly recently, they have now confirmed much older human footprints, around the 5 million year mark. Sure, you can believe they belonged to pithecines by faith if you want but don't pretend that human prints belonged to apes without proof.



Is this more of that creationist honesty ? They are not confirmed human footprints, I'm afraid CMI don't have that kind of authority. At best, they are possibly hominin. Even I can tell they don't look human, they're far too triangular - more like an ape.

 

Attached File  d41586-017-03029-9_14965224.jpg   88.75KB   0 downloads



#30 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,051 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 04 February 2018 - 06:59 PM

Already contained information, but inactive??

yes, in the form of transposons.
transposons are genetic sequences that are inserted into the DNA strand and then activated by epigenetics.
this is why genes are genes in context.
transposons are genes, but only when they have been activated, until they have been transposed and activated they are essentially "junk".

If it was already there, that doesn't solve the problem, it just moves it to an earlier timeframe. Where did the information originally come from? The probability of just selecting the right content in the right order for a 100-codon gene is still a few in 10130.

this is one reason i think abiogenesis should be separate from evolution proper.

Also, creating novel genes is an act of intelligence if it creates a gene that's actually needed to do a specific task, as opposed to novel artwork.

it's an interesting problem isn't it?
i'm not even going to try to explain how life got here.
it most certainly wasn't by a "gradual accumulation of genetic material", transposons are proof of that.

I don't understand the distinction. If you insist on separating them, how can you have one without the other? But alright, whatever you want to call it is fine. How could any natural process beat the odds in a trillion trillion trillion trillion years, let alone a few billion?

abiogenesis is about how the cell came together.
unfortunately no one understands how it happened.
one other thing, the first cells metabolism HAD to be complete.
IOW, the first cells were ALREADY complex, and it's very possible that the cell has undergone ZERO darwinian evolution.

I'm addressing the addition of a new protein, therefore a new gene. Are you saying a gene could be added by a natural process OTHER than Darwinian evolution?

yes, and there is ample empirical evidence that proves it.
you definitely need to get away from the darwinian paradigm because it is hampering you view of what evolution truly is.

As for Darwinian evolution, how can the slow additions/progressive gradual perfection of an organism develop a protein? Most organisms which are simpler than man have a smaller genome than man, which usually means thousands fewer genes. Where did all those new genes come from? You CAN'T build a gene by "numerous, successive, slight modifications" because the proteins which are coded by the genes either work or they don't. Natural selection has no way of knowing a particular protein is 95% right because it would function no better than a 0% right gene. That's my understanding, and I've seen no counter claims.

transposons aren't built up (as far as i know) but transferred enmass to a different place in the DNA strand.
even after they have been transferred, they STILL aren't genes unless they have been activated by epigenetics.
 

This is one of the main problems with evolution. And it's something Darwin had zero information about. Genes are immune to slow progress.

like i said, it's very possible that the cell has undergone zero darwinian evolution.

#31 nmp9463

nmp9463

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Grand Rapids, MI

Posted 04 February 2018 - 09:45 PM

I was discussing this on another board. Here's how the person I was discussing with it replied:

 

"That big number you presented me with looks huge and scary, but it seems to completely leave out how many times this dice is thrown as well as how many "dices" there exists all in all, including the fact that chemistry is not entirely random and follow laws. If there are millions or billions of dices being thrown all over the earth all the time following a set of rules the chances of life developing increases drastically."

 

I then pointed out even with all the building blocks and dices right there, even in a completely sterile environment, the odds are still astronomical.

 

He then said - get this - 'a sterile environment increases the probability.' I don't think he got it - the world wouldn't have been sterile then. "You have billion of years, and a billion of planets with billions of chemical reactions happening at a billion places on each planet thousands of times a second, trying to form life much simpler than the sequence of code above, the chances aren't that small anymore, and much, much bigger than what you provided above. "



#32 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 04 February 2018 - 10:31 PM

Why do I call Lucy fraud? They built up a whole skull from a few shards and gave her a shape halfway between ape and man. They guessed what hands and feet would look like, again to support their desired outcome. There's an exhibit somewhere that shows a complete mock-up of her in her natural habitat. Hail Lucy! Our ancestor. All praise to Lucy. Hallowed be Lucy's name. They don't say it quite like that, but what's been done kind of seems like worship.
 

Also, dating techniques for anything more than about 5000 years old is very dubious.

Well you would say that wouldn't you. Of course you have no reason for claiming that other than having a prior commitment to a literal Genesis no matter what. There are dozens of dating methods that go way beyond 5000 yrs, but they're all wrong and the scientists who devised them and the researchers who seem to get consistent and sensible results using them are all fooling themselves, right ?


As for dating techniques, I understand some ancient artifacts have been radio carbon dated going back a few thousand years, so that calibrates carbon14 dating somewhat. But you can't calibrate anything older than the flood because it's all subjective.

"Literal Genesis" usually means belief in a universe less than 10,000 years old. That's not me. I don't challenge the ~13.8 billion year age of the universe. As for the earth, I'm not sure. There's conflicting evidence of both a young and an old earth. But there's good reason to believe the worldwide flood happened about 5000 years ago.
 

For one thing, everything that lived before the worldwide flood (probably 5000 years ago) was buried in thoroughly disturbed ground.

Most YEC would say that the geological strata that hominin fossils are found in are post Flood (Cretaceous is normally given as the final flood strata)


The geological column is based on the belief that dirt keeps piling up, century after century, millennium after millennium. But even if that's true, the flood scrambled the record. Also, the column is very inconsistent through most of the world.

The most recent thing I've run across that dates the flood is the ancient Indian document, the Mahabharata. It tells of a big war that killed a lot of people. A war that big would get mentioned in other histories, but there's no other record of it. But it's written like history, not a novel. And there's one crucial detail. It mentions four astronomical events that happened that year. Astronomers have analyzed the events and found that it must have happened in 3067 BC (or maybe 3076, there's some disagreement). The war had to have happened before the flood, so that year puts a hard limit on when the flood happened. The document must have been copied from documents carried on the ark.

Also, secular world history seems to suddenly start about 5000 years ago. That would be odd if there were no flood. Also, there is clear evidence of advanced technology for which there is no written history, especially the megalithic structures in Peru, Lebanon, Egypt, Russia and other places. How do you precisely cut a 100 ton, oddly shaped granite block and gently jostle it into precise position? The technology was lost in the flood.

#33 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 05 February 2018 - 01:54 AM

I was discussing this on another board. Here's how the person I was discussing with it replied:

 

"That big number you presented me with looks huge and scary, but it seems to completely leave out how many times this dice is thrown as well as how many "dices" there exists all in all, including the fact that chemistry is not entirely random and follow laws. If there are millions or billions of dices being thrown all over the earth all the time following a set of rules the chances of life developing increases drastically."

 

I then pointed out even with all the building blocks and dices right there, even in a completely sterile environment, the odds are still astronomical.

 

He then said - get this - 'a sterile environment increases the probability.' I don't think he got it - the world wouldn't have been sterile then. "You have billion of years, and a billion of planets with billions of chemical reactions happening at a billion places on each planet thousands of times a second, trying to form life much simpler than the sequence of code above, the chances aren't that small anymore, and much, much bigger than what you provided above. "

 

YUP!!!

 

 

https://youtu.be/-3QldN3EnBI

 

 

"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires,

 they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear". 2 Tim 4



#34 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 05 February 2018 - 02:20 AM

 

Over "500 Million Years" while SOME Jellyfish "evolved" into a.... Human... OTHER jellyfish "evolved" into a .....JELLYFISH!!!??  :burp:


Still persisting with this line I see...

I called you out on this on another thread
http://evolutionfair...ntlement/page-2
 
....but as usual you ignored it
 
Perhaps you'll attempt a response this time ?
 

 

"Do you REALLY expect any sane person to believe that over the course of "500 million years" while SOME jellyfish were "evolving into humans" OTHER jellyfish were evolving into... Jellyfish?????? Please dont insult your own intelligence..


Perhaps you can start with providing a source that even suggests that humans (or any other animal for that matter, apart from jellyfish) evolved from jellyfish.

Then explain why the group we call jellyfish can’t possibly have had a representative existing 500 million years ago according to evolutionary theory.

For bonus points explain how your flood managed to bury and preserve something so delicate and unlikely to fossilize as a jellyfish but failed to preserve any fish or benthic organisms such as any modern looking sea urchins or starfish in the Cambrian layers.

 

 

 

 

Over "500 Million Years" while SOME Jellyfish "evolved" into a.... Human... OTHER jellyfish "evolved" into a .....JELLYFISH!!!??  :burp:

 

 

Still persisting with this line I see... I called you out on this on another thread
http://evolutionfair...ntlement/page-2
 ....but as usual you ignored it  Perhaps you'll attempt a response this time ?

 

YAWN.... THIS IS STARTING TO BE A TEDIOUS BORE... MIKE ALREADY REFUTED YOU AND

IN THE VERY NEXT POST AND YOU BLEW HIM OFF... NO THANKS.. I'LL PASS..  GO AHEAD

AND BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU WANT..  HERE IT IS AGAIN.. BUT WHAT IS THE POINT???

YOU HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE TRUTH ANYWAY..IT IS NO LONGER MY RESPONSIBILITY

TO HELP YOU.

 

 

"It’s long been thought we evolved from sea sponges, but new genetic research suggests that jellyfish-style creatures may have kicked off the human race. While trying to fill the gaps in the genome sequence of the comb jelly, a gelatinous sea creature similar to a jellyfish, researchers discovered it was related to all other animal species in the world. In fact, it shared so many similarities, the researchers went as far to suggest the creature may have been one of our first ancestors.

 

 

For the study, they analysed a particular type of comb jelly  called the sea walnut, or Mnemiopsis leidyi, found in the Atlantic Ocean.

When they mapped the genome and ran it through a computer program, the researchers discovered it shared DNA with all other animals.

They were also surprised to find that the spread of its DNA through these other species suggested it may have been the starting point.

More than half a billion years ago a single line of species separated from all other animals and scientists traditionally believed this originated with sea sponges. According to findings published in the journal Science, however, the comb jelly may be 'the earliest branch of the animal tree and the sister lineage to that of all other animals'.

 

The research was carried out by scientists from the University of Miami and the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) in Maryland.

They wanted to create the full genome sequence of a comb jelly to fill in some of the gaps in knowledge about the creature."
 

 

 http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz56DwyqMK5

 

 

The research was carried out by scientists from the University of Miami and the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) in Maryland.


 

 

 

 

 

http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz56DuNccmw



#35 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 05 February 2018 - 04:09 AM

 

 

 Wibble: They are not confirmed human footprints, I'm afraid CMI don't have that kind of authority. At best, they are possibly hominin. Even I can tell they don't look human, they're far too triangular - more like an ape.

 

It wasn't a CMI confirmation, I guess you missed the news about it, it was evolutionary scientists that investigated it.

 

As for the red-highlighted part of your post, it's a very obvious contradiction. You are claiming that apes became more towards the unique bipedal foot of humans, only humans have the unique human foot, so then how can you suggest the tracks look possibly, "hominin" when technically speaking there have only ever been one bipedal hominen known to have human feet, but in the same breath say they don't look, "human"?

 

Your complaint "triangular" makes it look more like an ape, is silly, apes don't have one large toe at the front and four toes next to it, they have a hand-like foot. Need I show you a picture of an ape's foot? You also need to remember track-ways are very different from finding actual remains of a foot, or a full foot because track-ways have all kinds of differing characteristics, basically you can get many track-ways made by humans which look pretty disparate but they all have the same basic, unique human pattern.

 

 

 

So what or who made the Trachilos prints? They are certainly convincing as real footprints, from the few pictures provided in the paper. The age estimate of 5.7m years also seems correct. The prints do have a narrow heel compared to our general idea of what human footprints look like, as the authors note. But that could easily be matched by the shape of human footprints walking in wet mud, such as in an estuary – which may have been the case.

 

Not from CMI, from here;

 

http://theconversati...made-them-83412

 

Amusingly they suggest gorillas also have a large toe next to it's other toes but show a photograph showing a huge dissimilarity, such is the blindness evolution has over people in it's deceptive spiritual connotations by which men deceive themselves. They basically see humanity in an ape foot where there is none. Lol!

 

 

 

 

 Wibble: And A. afarensis is the only hominin fossil found anywhere near Laetoli, so seems the most likely candidate for those tracks

 

No, critical thinking tells us this is ABYSMALLY tenuous in it's circumstantial capacity. Think about it, would you want to be convicted of murder because you were the only one they could confirm were in the park at that time? What an appallingly weak argument-from-ignorance, that because you say the only evidence of animals in stone or buried at that time are found to be pithecine Afarensis or whatever they call the apes, that this means human track ways likely belonged to them. 

 

That's no different from saying that if we found fossils of giraffes in an area but nothing else, but those giraffes had no feet, that cat-prints near by could only belong to giraffes.

 

I am afraid this only tells me that people educated in the science of these things, that study them and find them and conclude these things, are not prone towards good critical thinking just because they have a phd. They only conclude human tracks belong to apes based on circular reasoning, they only conclude it because, "evolution says humans didn't exist at this time but that apes were evolving into them".

 

 

EXAMPLE:

 

"All atheists are terribly immoral, evil people."

"But look Bob is a fairly decent chap, sure he has sin like all but he hasn't done any evil."

Answer: "Then he can't be atheist because all atheists are immoral, evil people."

"But he says he is atheist."

"A false claim he is making because he can't be because all atheists are evil. We must assume he feels the need to say he is atheist."

 

Essentially fallacious, because the general rule is constantly invoked against any facts that indicate it false, so the facts themselves are re-worked. (See how it is re-worked so the person can stick to the conclusion. First he says an atheist isn't really one then he says the atheist must be lying about being one. The correct thing to do is actually question the general statement.)

 

Wibble, is what I am asking too much to ask? That you don't make out human-like tracks definitely belonged to extinct Afarensis apes? It's not so much your suggestions that come across as pretentious or mendacious, it's how you say things, as though it is proven when all of the probability it is human, is actually close to 100% statistically, if we are to ask, "how many human tracks have been made by humans, in the past?" of the ones we can know to be human. 100 out of 100. Only humans have human feet, it is a unique design for our type of bipedalism. Lucy also has a foramen magnum which is close to that of a chimps, assuming you understand how easily this points to duadrupedal anatomy, for if you look at the spine of a dog will it enter the skull at the angle a humans does? Or does it make more sense the spine will enter from the rear of the head in things more quadrupedal than biped? So while there is some evidence towards bipedality, there is some against, and ultimately we can't know because we don't have a live specimen, to see how it walked and how it got about. A lot of people think it was unique in itself the Afarensis line, both apart from apes and human, so you don't half colour the facts as though it is all a simple and solved matter of evolution. As usual the experts and what they say and offer, is disparate from what the layman evolutionist argues, the latter usually arguing a stronger case than exists.

 

http://evolutionfair...-wasnt-a-biped/(message one)



#36 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 05 February 2018 - 12:11 PM

 

 

Over "500 Million Years" while SOME Jellyfish "evolved" into a.... Human... OTHER jellyfish "evolved" into a .....JELLYFISH!!!??  :burp:


Still persisting with this line I see...

I called you out on this on another thread
http://evolutionfair...ntlement/page-2
 
....but as usual you ignored it
 
Perhaps you'll attempt a response this time ?
 

 

"Do you REALLY expect any sane person to believe that over the course of "500 million years" while SOME jellyfish were "evolving into humans" OTHER jellyfish were evolving into... Jellyfish?????? Please dont insult your own intelligence..


Perhaps you can start with providing a source that even suggests that humans (or any other animal for that matter, apart from jellyfish) evolved from jellyfish.

Then explain why the group we call jellyfish can’t possibly have had a representative existing 500 million years ago according to evolutionary theory.

For bonus points explain how your flood managed to bury and preserve something so delicate and unlikely to fossilize as a jellyfish but failed to preserve any fish or benthic organisms such as any modern looking sea urchins or starfish in the Cambrian layers.

 

 

 

 

Over "500 Million Years" while SOME Jellyfish "evolved" into a.... Human... OTHER jellyfish "evolved" into a .....JELLYFISH!!!??  :burp:


 
 
Still persisting with this line I see... I called you out on this on another thread
http://evolutionfair...ntlement/page-2
 ....but as usual you ignored it  Perhaps you'll attempt a response this time ?
 
YAWN.... THIS IS STARTING TO BE A TEDIOUS BORE... MIKE ALREADY REFUTED YOU AND
IN THE VERY NEXT POST AND YOU BLEW HIM OFF... NO THANKS.. I'LL PASS..  GO AHEAD
AND BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU WANT..  HERE IT IS AGAIN.. BUT WHAT IS THE POINT???
YOU HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE TRUTH ANYWAY..IT IS NO LONGER MY RESPONSIBILITY
TO HELP YOU.
 
 
"It’s long been thought we evolved from sea sponges, but new genetic research suggests that jellyfish-style creatures may have kicked off the human race. While trying to fill the gaps in the genome sequence of the comb jelly, a gelatinous sea creature similar to a jellyfish, researchers discovered it was related to all other animal species in the world. In fact, it shared so many similarities, the researchers went as far to suggest the creature may have been one of our first ancestors.

 


The tedious bore is you constantly repeating exactly the same rhetoric word for word and blanket ignoring the scientific responses provided to you, you're like a goldfish going round a bowl. And how exactly did Mike "refute" me, he didn't even talk about your jellyfish to human mantra.

Your tabloid paper article was dealt with here:
 
http://evolutionfair...lly#entry141109

The bottom line is that nobody believes that humans evolved from the Cambrian medusae jellyfish that you may have seen fossil photos of. Can you at least agree with that ? Nor are humans on a direct line from the comb jellies (different phylum) that the Daily Fail article mentioned.



#37 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 05 February 2018 - 12:42 PM

The bottom line is that nobody believes that humans evolved from the Cambrian medusae jellyfish that you may have seen fossil photos of.


But evolutionists do believe that man evolved from some simple organism, right? Maybe Blitzking is a boor when he keeps using the wrong organism, but that complaint seems moot compared to the magnitude of the outrageous claim evolutionists make.

#38 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 05 February 2018 - 01:42 PM

 

The bottom line is that nobody believes that humans evolved from the Cambrian medusae jellyfish that you may have seen fossil photos of.


But evolutionists do believe that man evolved from some simple organism, right? Maybe Blitzking is a boor when he keeps using the wrong organism, but that complaint seems moot compared to the magnitude of the outrageous claim evolutionists make.

 


Yes of course, its just a bit irksome when falsehoods are endlessly repeated.

You may think it an outrageous claim but its what the data tells us. Just think of God guiding the process if you can't cope with believing it an all natural event. I think its an outrageous claim to believe life only got started 6000 yrs ago and all in the present form. One side is overwhelming supported by the science and its not yours I'm afraid.



#39 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 05 February 2018 - 02:14 PM

You may think it an outrageous claim but its what the data tells us. ... One side is overwhelming supported by the science and its not yours I'm afraid.


You could make that argument seventy year ago or so. Life certainly looked designed, but that was a subjective argument. Scientists couldn't see far enough into the cell and body to see the many levels of hierarchical function. And the astounding number of permutations of proteins of which a handful are viable for a particular function remained hidden. The code that maps DNA to proteins and the molecular machinery that uses it were all hidden. Lacking this data, scientists could be excused for still having faith in Darwin's explanation.

But now that we have the data we no longer have an excuse to believe in evolution.
  • Blitzking likes this

#40 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,141 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 05 February 2018 - 02:23 PM

 

Do you believe Lucy is a fraud ? If so, how ?


The bones they found were no doubt real. But they didn't find a full skeleton. No feet, no hands, only a few scraps of a skull. The analysis that determined it stood upright was based on the angle of one knee joint. How do we know this one specimen wasn't irregular or deformed? They read an AWFUL LOT into the tiny bit of information available. They saw what they wanted to see. There's a name for that, but I forget it.

Some other expert said it was probably just an ape.

Also, dating techniques for anything more than about 5000 years old is very dubious. For one thing, everything that lived before the worldwide flood (probably 5000 years ago) was buried in thoroughly disturbed ground.

 

 

Lucy's skeleton included the sacrum, left hip bone and joint, complete femur, and humerus (the complete knee joint actually came from a different Australopithecus afarensis fossil).  And all those things were indicative that she stood and walked upright.....at least, far more so than a chimp.  Also, Ken, as I alluded to above, Lucy is not the only Australopithecus afarensis fossil that has been found.  There are several others including Taung Child and Selam which both provided nearly complete skulls....

 

Whether or not they were apes, well, I guess it depends how you define ape.  Scientifically speaking, humans are apes....but, I'm guessing you meant that she was more like a tree-dwelling ape....like a chimpanzee.  In actuality, she was probably a mixed bag; parts of her (skull) appeared to be more chimp-like; others (torso and arms) somewhere in between humans and chimps; and still others (hips, knees, femur-to-humerus ratio) much more human-like....






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users