Evolution Is A Theory On Which You Base A Religion

[fish601]

did you click my hovind links


hes kinda funny

 

[hanimmal]

I cannot find anything legit talking about the Guadalupa woman. The only things they say is that it was found in 1821 and taken down in 1881, and has not been seen since. And with radiocarbon dating being invented in 1949, how did they date it? I have not found anything close to science on this.

But with all the other things that the articles point to I was able to find some more:

Calaveras Skull

On February 25, 1866, miners found a human skull in a mine, beneath a layer of lava, 130 feet (39 m) below the surface of the earth, which made it into the hands of Josiah Whitney, then the State Geologist of California as well as a Professor of Geology at Harvard University. A year before the skull came to his attention, Whitney had published the aforementioned belief of humans, mastodons, and elephants having coexisted and the skull only served as proof of his convictions. After careful study, he officially announced its discovery at a meeting of the California Academy of Science on July 16, 1866, declaring it evidence of the existence of Pliocene age man in North America, which would make it the oldest known record of humans on the continent.

However, its authenticity was immediately challenged. In 1869 a San Francisco newspaper reported that a miner had told a minister that the skull was planted as a practical joke. Thomas Wilson of Harvard ran a fluorine analysis on it in 1879, with the results indicating it was of recent origin. It was so widely believed to be a hoax that Bret Harte famously wrote a satirical poem called "To the Pliocene Skull" in 1899.

So one hoax down.

The Castenedolo and Olmo skulls from Italy and the Calaveras skull from California were modern skulls, but all were found in undisturbed Pliocene strata.

Talk Origins is using an out of date creationist reference: Their cited source is eight years more recent. Dr. Morris' source was a Readers Digest article from August 1973, and the error was made by that author, not Morris. It needs to be noted that these bones are not used any more. Most creationists have abandoned them in true scientific fashion as they have been found to be erroneous.

Hoax number 2.

The Moab Man (also called "Malachite man") is a controversial find of around ten human skeletons in rock dated to the Early Cretaceous period, about 140 Ma. The discovery was made in 1971 by Lin Ottinger in the Keystone Azurite Mine near Moab, Utah and has been used by creationists as an argument for humans coexisting with dinosaurs. John Marwitt, an archaeologist and the Field Director for the Utah Archaeological Survey, examined the fossils and concluded that the fossils were probably only hundreds of years old, the result of burials of Native Americans.

Later examination of the "Moab Man" skeletons indicate that they are unfossilized, and have been carbon dated to between 210 and 1450 years old (Berger and Protsch, 1989; Coulam and Schroedl, 1995)

Yeah yeah I know they are wiki links, but I read other sources that debunked them all, it is just that wiki summed them up nicely.


I am guessing since Guadaluope woman was taken down shortly after darwins theory was stated it may have more to do with the excitement of what they had and more investigation into it to find it to be a fraud then it being one piece of information that would shatter a brand new theory. It would be a huge coup to have the one piece of evidence that would disprove all scientific theory into evolution.

 

[hanimmal]

And I just reread some of the posts, and I completely missed when the dude with the tiger avatar posted this:

THATS FUCKIN MICRO EVOLUTION, our genes can easly change our pigmintation, look at all the human colours. Wheres the new element in the DNA?

Here you go:

Humans show big DNA differences

DNA comparisons: Gains (green), losses (red), the same (yellow)

Scientists have shown that the genetic make-up of humans can vary hugely - far more than was previously thought. A UK-led team made a detailed analysis of the DNA found in 270 people and identified vast regions to be duplicated or even missing.


A great many of these variations are in areas of the genome that would not damage our health, Matthew Hurles and colleagues told the journal Nature.
But others are - and can be shown to play a role in a number of disorders.


"We were certainly surprised; we expected to find that there would be some variation, but we weren't expecting to find quite this much," Dr Hurles told BBC News.
To date, the investigation of the human genome has tended to focus on very small changes in DNA that can have deleterious effects - at the scale of just one or a few bases, or "letters", in the biochemical code that programs cellular activity.


And for many years, scientists have also been able to look through microscopes to see very large-scale abnormalities that arise when whole DNA bundles, or chromosomes, are truncated or duplicated.
But it is only recently that researchers have developed the molecular "tools" to focus on medium-scale variations - at the scale of thousands of DNA letters.

Big factor
This analysis of so-called copy number variation (CNV) has now revealed some startling results.
It would seem the assumption that the DNA of any two humans is 99.9% similar in content and identity no longer holds.
The researchers were astonished to locate 1,447 CNVs in nearly 2,900 genes, the starting "templates" written in the DNA that are used by cells to make the proteins which drive our bodies.


This is a huge, hitherto unrecognised, level of variation between one individual and the next.
"Each one of us has a unique pattern of gains and losses of complete sections of DNA," said Matthew Hurles, of the UK's Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute.


"One of the real surprises of these results was just how much of our DNA varies in copy number. We estimate this to be at least 12% of the genome.


"The copy number variation that researchers had seen before was simply the tip of the iceberg, while the bulk lay submerged, undetected. We now appreciate the immense contribution of this phenomenon to genetic differences between individuals."

Evolving story
The new understanding will change the way in which scientists search for genes involved in disease.
"Many examples of diseases resulting from changes in copy number are emerging," commented Charles Lee, one of the project's leaders from Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, US.


"A recent review lists 17 conditions of the nervous system alone - including Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease - that can result from such copy number changes."


Scientists are not sure why the copy variations emerge, but it probably has something to do with the shuffling of genetic material that occurs in the production of eggs and sperm; the process is prone to errors.
As well as aiding the investigation of disease and the development of new drugs, the research will also inform the study of human evolution, which probes genetic variation in modern populations for what it can say about their relationship to ancestral peoples.

 

[fish601]

You don't understand what macro/micro evolution means...
.

macro is not science

 

[PadawanBater]

macro is not science

Tell me why.

Like I explained to you before, macro evolution has the exact same processes as micro evolution, the one and only difference is the amount of time.

 

[CrackerJax]

Fish, you aren't even qualified to say if macro is scientific or not. All of your posts indicate an utter lack of knowledge of science. It's not simply a matte of "opinion". It's not a beauty contest.....

 

[fish601]

Tell me why.

Like I explained to you before, macro evolution has the exact same processes as micro evolution, the one and only difference is the amount of time.

micro can be proven
macro we only believe it can happen

asummption is the mother of all F***ups

they assume macro can happen

they assume dating methods are right

we assume scientist know what they are talking about

we assume text books give us accurate information

people assume marijuana is bad

scientist cant even agree on how bad marijuana is

 

[fish601]

Fish, you aren't even qualified to say if macro is scientific or not. All of your posts indicate an utter lack of knowledge of science. It's not simply a matte of "opinion". It's not a beauty contest.....

your right i am not qualified to talk about science i have a huge lack of knowledge about that subject. i find it really funny when scientist debate about science
science is not a matter of opinion but alot of scientist use there opinion and teach it to our children

 

[hanimmal]

micro can be proven
macro we only believe it can happen
asummption is the mother of all F***ups
they assume macro can happen
they assume dating methods are right
we assume scientist know what they are talking about
we assume text books give us accurate information
people assume marijuana is bad
scientist cant even agree on how bad marijuana is

You are wrong, see the small changes that can be quickly seen are observed, the same changes that are small add up and that is where different 'species' occur.


The belief that you hold is that these animals are somehow different. What it really is is that all those very small changes took millions of years to evolve to the point that you call it a different species, family, order, ect. But it still starts from the same point.

One animal does not change into another. It is one animal that a mutation occurs that results in a small change, over time those small changes get passed on to others in its group, usually not even showing differences. But once two parents have a child that carried the same mutation the new offspring has the full trait. If it is benefitial it will be easier for them to reproduce, and slowly those changes occur.

Usually you will end up with several different new types of the same animal, with the original still sticking around.


But the big thing with everything you said, is that you assume all this is wrong. And your only evidence is people that want to sell you the idea of god to keep you in their numbers. They cannot allow themselves to be questioned, because if they allow the holes to be poked, they lose their revenue stream. On the other hand science is constantly being challenged. People everyday question it and test it, and it still holds up to testing. But that is not good enough for you right now. Eventually you may decide to look into the actual facts instead of the churches propaganda, and when that happens you will find it is a interesting place to be.

 

[fish601]

You are wrong, see the small changes that can be quickly seen are observed, the same changes that are small add up and that is where different 'species' occur.


The belief that you hold is that these animals are somehow different. What it really is is that all those very small changes took millions of years to evolve to the point that you call it a different species, family, order, ect. But it still starts from the same point.

One animal does not change into another. It is one animal that a mutation occurs that results in a small change, over time those small changes get passed on to others in its group, usually not even showing differences. But once two parents have a child that carried the same mutation the new offspring has the full trait. If it is benefitial it will be easier for them to reproduce, and slowly those changes occur.

Usually you will end up with several different new types of the same animal, with the original still sticking around.


But the big thing with everything you said, is that you assume all this is wrong. And your only evidence is people that want to sell you the idea of god to keep you in their numbers. They cannot allow themselves to be questioned, because if they allow the holes to be poked, they lose their revenue stream. On the other hand science is constantly being challenged. People everyday question it and test it, and it still holds up to testing. But that is not good enough for you right now. Eventually you may decide to look into the actual facts instead of the churches propaganda, and when that happens you will find it is a interesting place to be.

all that sounds good but....

 

[mared juwan]

Do you know how much money they spend to produce a textbook? Do you know why they are so expensive? Because they spend thousands of hours FACT checking. Making SURE their information is correct. Things written in textbooks are far more believable than anything I see typed by a guy named "fish601" with a picture of Jesus as his avatar. Why do you even try to argue your point? You have no credibility because you are obviously viewing the world through a window tinted by religion. Nobody takes you seriously.

 

[fish601]

Do you know how much money they spend to produce a textbook? Do you know why they are so expensive? Because they spend thousands of hours FACT checking. Making SURE their information is correct. Things written in textbooks are far more believable than anything I see typed by a guy named "fish601" with a picture of Jesus as his avatar. Why do you even try to argue your point? You have no credibility because you are obviously viewing the world through a window tinted by religion. Nobody takes you seriously.

you must of not seen the fox news special about textbooks;;;;;;

FOX News Reporting investigated the $10 billion dollar-a-year textbook industry and how the drive to be politically correct might be taking over American schools. Host Tucker Carlson, asked experts, teachers, publishers and parents the same question: "Do you know what is inside your children's textbooks?" From kindergarten through college, we found staggering errors and omissions which may be pushing agendas, hidden and otherwise http://www.thefoxnation.com/culture/2009/09/03/preview-fox-news-reporting-do-you-know-what-textbooks-your-children-are-really-re

 

[fish601]

Why do you even try to argue your point? You have no credibility because you are obviously viewing the world through a window tinted by religion. Nobody takes you seriously.

shut me out because i believe something else?

 

[ReggaeGanja]

well if evelution was real wouldnt our dicks be GINORMOUS? like trees?

 

[ReggaeGanja]

OMG!! i just thought of something if the school can teach about EVOLUTION wich is pretty mmuch a theory.. thenn why is it against some laws to even say GOD in school? dude uhh fuk the police and the govnmt..

 

[ReggaeGanja]

shut me out because i believe something else?

 

[kms420]

i believe religion and evolution are two seperate areas of discussion. for example which came first the chicken or the egg? before i get into this dnt get me wrong i believe in the lord some what, now stating that you can go either way with that if your religious the lord created all living things so u would say the chicken cam first but at the darwinn stand point you would say the egg cam first, but what do i know i smoke pot lol as long as u believe in sumthin i guess....cronicals of a stoner....im ripped lol

 

[CrackerJax]

Question: Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg?

Answer: Neither, the Rooster came first.....and then he smoked a cig.

 

[OregonMeds]

all that sounds good but....

I love that this is all you had to say in response.

People are not taking your seriously, that's true because you don't even try to research things on sites that aren't cristian first and foremost. You are looking to them for everything and now you even list fox news as a reference to dismiss the accuracy and fact checking that goes into trying to clear up revisionist history.

We have waisted time trying to counter some of the crap you are brainwashed with and even given references to proof and shown you evolution is real and the only difference between macro and micro evolution is time and on and on and on but you can't or won't listen, don't take anytning other than what's on fox news or cristian websites seriously and want to claim science is as fake as the religion we can see clouds your mind completely.

On top of all this you sound generally ignorant, unedjucated, and young.

You have been polite though, so you don't seem like a complete waste...

 

[mared juwan]

shut me out because i believe something else?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Your "beliefs" cloud your judgement because you want all the facts to fit those "beliefs". I don't let my "beliefs" affect what I state as a fact. It's called objectivity.