Great Hoaxes of Science. Spoiler Alert: Most are about Evolution and/or early man

[Seymour Flops]

What you fail to take into account is that gliding is likely a precursor (prototype?) for flight. Plenty of animals have developed the ability to glide to various degrees.

Yes, I've heard that theory, but I don't know how to describe it without sounding sarcastic. It's about a flap of skin developing under the arm of a tree-dwelling animal that gradually evolves into gliding wings, which turn into flapping, flying wings?

Could you explain that for us, including the number of mutations required to go from a non-gliding/flying animal to animal that can take off from the ground and fly for long periods of time?

Also tell us if the same evolutionary process independently created flying insects, flying mammals and flying birds?

 

[alang1216]

Maybe, maybe not. How long have chickens and other flightless birds existed? Because it seems to me they might be MORE proof that long periods of stasis is the norm.

Flightless birds are a periodic addition. They seem to be ready to give up flight whenever they get a chance.

 

[ding]

Flightless birds are a periodic addition. They seem to be ready to give up flight whenever they get a chance.

That's great but it doesn't seem like it addressed my question.

 

[Hollie]

Yes, I've heard that theory, but I don't know how to describe it without sounding sarcastic. It's about a flap of skin developing under the arm of a tree-dwelling animal that gradually evolves into gliding wings, which turn into flapping, flying wings?

Could you explain that for us, including the number of mutations required to go from a non-gliding/flying animal to animal that can take off from the ground and fly for long periods of time?

Also tell us if the same evolutionary process independently created flying insects, flying mammals and flying birds?

The designer gods hired interns?

 

[alang1216]

Yes, I've heard that theory, but I don't know how to describe it without sounding sarcastic. It's about a flap of skin developing under the arm of a tree-dwelling animal that gradually evolves into gliding wings, which turn into flapping, flying wings?

Many creatures glide so it must be advantageous so it seems obvious to me that the better they can glide the better their chances of survival.

Could you explain that for us, including the number of mutations required to go from a non-gliding/flying animal to animal that can take off from the ground and fly for long periods of time?

Nope but there is a great article on the steps from scales to flight feathers. Really not that tough.

Also tell us if the same evolutionary process independently created flying insects, flying mammals and flying birds?

We've all seen flying squirrels so it's not hard for me to imagine their gliding improving as their arm bones got longer. A few million years and you got a bat.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Many creatures glide so it must be advantageous so it seems obvious to me that the better they can glide the better their chances of survival.

Yes, a great design, that.

Nope but there is a great article on the steps from scales to flight feathers. Really not that tough.

Can't you explain it in your own words? I'll be happy to take reading assignments from you, so long as you take them from me and verify through a quiz that you did the reading.

We've all seen flying squirrels so it's not hard for me to imagine their gliding improving as their arm bones got longer. A few million years and you got a bat.

You can imagine it, but have you seen it?

Darwin published his theory 150 years ago. How much "flying" squirrel evolution have we seen in that time?

 

[alang1216]

Yes, a great design, that.

I obviously works.

Can't you explain it in your own words? I'll be happy to take reading assignments from you, so long as you take them from me and verify through a quiz that you did the reading.

Sure I can explain it, simple scales become more complex and then you have feathers. Once you have feathers they evolve into flight feathers. If you want more detail go to the library.

You can imagine it, but have you seen it?

Have I observed flying squirrels for a million years? Not yet.

Darwin published his theory 150 years ago. How much "flying" squirrel evolution have we seen in that time?

Good question but I don't know anyone who takes precise, annual measurements of the critters to see if they are changing from one generation to the next. I can't say either way, can you?

 

[Seymour Flops]

I obviously works.

You does?

Just kidding!

Sure I can explain it, simple scales become more complex and then you have feathers. Once you have feathers they evolve into flight feathers. If you want more detail go to the library.

I think you leave out a few steps. Like a few million . . .

Have I observed flying squirrels for a million years? Not yet.

It takes a million years for even a slight difference to appear? Kinda makes Darwinism unlikely then.

Good question but I don't know anyone who takes precise, annual measurements of the critters to see if they are changing from one generation to the next. I can't say either way, can you?

I would wonder why they are not doing that simple experiment. It could go a a long way to proving this gradual mutation into useful adaptations theory. Or it could disprove it. Ok, now I see why they don't do it.

 

[alang1216]

I think you leave out a few steps. Like a few million . . .

Actually there are fewer steps than you'd think. That Scientific American article is really worth reading.

It takes a million years for even a slight difference to appear? Kinda makes Darwinism unlikely then.

Probably somewhere between 150 and a million.

I would wonder why they are not doing that simple experiment. It could go a a long way to proving this gradual mutation into useful adaptations theory. Or it could disprove it. Ok, now I see why they don't do it.

I don't creationists doing it either. Why would that be?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Actually there are fewer steps than you'd think. That Scientific American article is really worth reading.

It's behind a paywall. Why dont you explain it in your own words. Nothing personal but I'm not sure you read it yourself since you're being so slippery.

Probably somewhere between 150 and a million.

Very precise, this scientific theory . . .

I don't creationists doing it either. Why would that be?

I don't know. Ask a creationist.

 

[alang1216]

It's behind a paywall. Why dont you explain it in your own words. Nothing personal but I'm not sure you read it yourself since you're being so slippery.

I did read it and to summarize small changes in how proto-feathers grow lead to big changes in how feathers look and act. The details are technical and I'm sure I'd only get them wrong from my failing memory.

Very precise, this scientific theory . . .

Depends on the selection pressures but could be very fast it seems.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Here's one about early man's development of technology:

Self-taught archaeologist Shinichi Fujimura burst into the limelight in 1981 with his apparent discovery of a 40,000-year-old piece of stoneware, which would have been the oldest such find in Japan. In subsequent years, Fujimura unveiled objects that seemed even older and that helped piece together Japan’s early history.

In 2000, things started to fall apart for Fujimura when he came forward with a cluster of stone pieces that he suggested had been made by primitive people. He also pointed out several holes (in the ground) that many thought had once held supports for prehistoric shelters. Evidence suggested that his find was more than 600,000 years old, making it one of the oldest signs of human life in the world. Later in 2000, however, photos emerged of Fujimura digging the holes himself as well as planting the artifacts that he later “found.”

Following this revelation, Fujimura admitted that he had faked many of his discoveries, claiming he had been “possessed by an uncontrollable urge.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/five-of-the-most-famous-scientific-hoaxes/2015/03/02/a0b64f9e-b6cd-11e4-9423-f3d0a1ec335c_story.html

I was very close to a genuine spit take when I read that last line. I think that is the explanation for many of the hoaxes and false narratives by the proponents of Darwinian evolution. I see a "scientist" babbling about life being "seeded" on Earth by space aliens and I wonder what gets into them.

 

[Hollie]

Here's one about early man's development of technology:

Self-taught archaeologist Shinichi Fujimura burst into the limelight in 1981 with his apparent discovery of a 40,000-year-old piece of stoneware, which would have been the oldest such find in Japan. In subsequent years, Fujimura unveiled objects that seemed even older and that helped piece together Japan’s early history.

In 2000, things started to fall apart for Fujimura when he came forward with a cluster of stone pieces that he suggested had been made by primitive people. He also pointed out several holes (in the ground) that many thought had once held supports for prehistoric shelters. Evidence suggested that his find was more than 600,000 years old, making it one of the oldest signs of human life in the world. Later in 2000, however, photos emerged of Fujimura digging the holes himself as well as planting the artifacts that he later “found.”

Following this revelation, Fujimura admitted that he had faked many of his discoveries, claiming he had been “possessed by an uncontrollable urge.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/five-of-the-most-famous-scientific-hoaxes/2015/03/02/a0b64f9e-b6cd-11e4-9423-f3d0a1ec335c_story.html

I was very close to a genuine spit take when I read that last line. I think that is the explanation for many of the hoaxes and false narratives by the proponents of Darwinian evolution. I see a "scientist" babbling about life being "seeded" on Earth by space aliens and I wonder what gets into them.

Your space alien conspiracies are pretty darn funny.

 

[Hollie]

Here's one about early man's development of technology:

Self-taught archaeologist Shinichi Fujimura burst into the limelight in 1981 with his apparent discovery of a 40,000-year-old piece of stoneware, which would have been the oldest such find in Japan. In subsequent years, Fujimura unveiled objects that seemed even older and that helped piece together Japan’s early history.

In 2000, things started to fall apart for Fujimura when he came forward with a cluster of stone pieces that he suggested had been made by primitive people. He also pointed out several holes (in the ground) that many thought had once held supports for prehistoric shelters. Evidence suggested that his find was more than 600,000 years old, making it one of the oldest signs of human life in the world. Later in 2000, however, photos emerged of Fujimura digging the holes himself as well as planting the artifacts that he later “found.”

Following this revelation, Fujimura admitted that he had faked many of his discoveries, claiming he had been “possessed by an uncontrollable urge.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/five-of-the-most-famous-scientific-hoaxes/2015/03/02/a0b64f9e-b6cd-11e4-9423-f3d0a1ec335c_story.html

I was very close to a genuine spit take when I read that last line. I think that is the explanation for many of the hoaxes and false narratives by the proponents of Darwinian evolution. I see a "scientist" babbling about life being "seeded" on Earth by space aliens and I wonder what gets into them.

Perhaps you missed the part where your copy and paste identified, “Self-taught archaeologist Shinichi Fujimura…”. It was the first sentence of your copy and paste so a shame you didn’t understand what you copied and pasted.

Copying and pasting a “great hoax of science” committed by a non-scientist is a bit of an attempt at a hoax on your part.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As new information becomes available previous assumptions are changed to accommodate the new information.

It is called the scientific method

It's that simple. And it is exactly why religious nutters think science cannot be trusted.

They cling to an unalterable and allegedly infallible pile of iron age myths. In their primitive and aggressively ignorant paradigm, no new information can ever alter these myths. And, if they allowed it to do so, they believe it would undermine the entire collection of primitive myths.

So they see curiosity and learning as weakness. They literally think that learning something new in science means scientific knowledge is all dubious or false.

Because they have to do so. Else, the way they see it, they have to abandon the iron age myths that they see as their own identity.

So, by asking the to accept new knowledge that doesn't align with their magical beliefs, you are essentially asking them to abandon themselves.

And so we get treated to spamming dumbfuck socks like Seymour Flops . His embarrassing, childish spamming is not for anyone's benefit but his own. Self soothing and self affirmation.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Perhaps you missed the part where your copy and paste identified, “Self-taught archaeologist Shinichi Fujimura…”. It was the first sentence of your copy and paste so a shame you didn’t understand what you copied and pasted.

Copying and pasting a “great hoax of science” committed by a non-scientist is a bit of an attempt at a hoax on your part.

The "real scientists" took him and his "finds" very seriously.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The "real scientists" took him and his "finds" very seriously.

Right, which means they deemed them to be worth investigating. Not that they believed them.

What happened, once the claims were investigated thoroughly? You posted it. Your own, chosen example undermines your narrative, and your embarrassing analysis exposes your shortcomings.

Again the difference between your magical paradigm and science reveals itself in your truncated, handicapped thought process.

Scientists don't take declarations on authority, divine or otherwise. You do.

Thus your confusion from the start.

 

[miketx]

The "real scientists" took him and his "finds" very seriously.

Can't fix stupid.

 

[Hollie]

The "real scientists" took him and his "finds" very seriously.

Until they used the methods of science to examine the data,

You might want to move on to another of the creationer clown shows with the Piltdown Man cut and paste. Another correction made by science.

So, you used a large portion of the stereotypical creationer ''science is all one big conspiracy theory'' rants with Shinichi Fujimura. I just gave you Piltdown Man so I expect Haeckel's drawings next.

​

That's three which covers the usual cut and paste, ''science is all one big conspiracy theory'', used by the typical creationer.

 

[james bond]

I obviously works.


Sure I can explain it, simple scales become more complex and then you have feathers. Once you have feathers they evolve into flight feathers. If you want more detail go to the library.


Have I observed flying squirrels for a million years? Not yet.


Good question but I don't know anyone who takes precise, annual measurements of the critters to see if they are changing from one generation to the next. I can't say either way, can you?

Obviously it works, so one point for the intelligent design side.

What we find are BOTH flight and flightless birds as evidence. It doesn't appear to be flightless turning into flight ones no matter how long people have watched them. This is what your atheist scientists have claimed as birds from dinosaurs (which was proven wrong already). Atheists and their scientists are liars and evidence for wrongness.