Mathematician destroy Evolution in 5 Min

[code1211]

Once again the theory claims men evolved from an ape like creature. And that other animals evolved from other totally different species. YET there is absolutely NO evidence of these claims. NOT a single one.

Seems to me that the existence of so many highly similar species is the evidence for this theory

What sort of evidence would one need to satisfy you?

How about leaving animals on an island and watching them for several hundred years to see if they change into a new species? How about 'fossils' that demonstrate one species changing into another species? Since man has been documenting animals, there have been no such changes: domesticated dogs have not turned into domesticated bovines, equines or felines. This has never been documented.

Scientists that want to support evolution will show 'missing link' fossils implying they have an entire skeleton, when they may only have a small section or even a single bone. They do not have an adult skeleton of a neanderthal man, yet they (some scientists) teach that we evolved from this mythological creature. It would be like listening to the Egyptians, telling us we 'evolved' from Annubis (man's body, dog's head). There are statues and drawing so there must have been a bunch of them walking around....right?

Seriously, the people that 'believe' in 'evolution' have a LOT more faith than your average Christian. At least 'their Book' was written by several different authors over thousands of years, saying similar things, describing the Lord in similar ways, and in many cases being killed for their telling the 'rulers' they were living against G*d. Maybe evolutionsists tell their children: you better behave or you will evolve into an invertebrae. It is pure logic....not.

Your thoughts are factually incorrect. For a better understanding, please read the article in the link below.

Neadertal and Homo sapien co-existed. Neither descended form the other. Both had common ancestors.

Evolution of the extent that you seek does not occur over weeks or years. It takes millions or billions of years. The stuff we are made of is not designed to last that long and recycles into other forms.

Evolution can be observed in the short term, however, if you look for it. If you have children or parents, there are probably physical similarities between your group. If there are, you are observing evolution. If you have ever observed a person and thought that his forebearers came from Africa, you are observing evolution.

If you have ever seen a person and thought that the light skinned woman of African descent looks a little Asian and is really striingly beautiful, you are observing evolution.

Similarities of individuals passed from one generation to the next is evolution. If you have looked at a child and said he has his father's nose, you have observed evolution.

Neandertal Advance: First Fully Jointed Skeleton Built

Scientists have for the first time constructed a fully articulated, or jointed, Neandertal skeleton using castings from real Neandertal bones.

<snip>

Disappearance

Neandertals lived in Europe and some parts of Asia from 300,000 years ago. The last of them mysteriously disappeared in present-day Spain and Portugal 28,000 years ago. Modern humans, many scientists believe, arose in Africa less than 200,000 years ago and appeared in great numbers in Europe starting about 40,000 years ago.

The relationship between Neandertals and the early modern humans, commonly known as Cro-Magnon beings, is fuzzy. The two groups overlapped in Europe for 10,000 years.

 

[geauxtohell]

as to scientists trying to discover missing links and all that, the bear share of genetic and biological research, even directly related to evolution, is not focussed on making the theory more convincing to fundamentalists. you could look into what breakthroughs biological science has derived since darwin for some evidence of that. but i'm pleased that people are working toward understanding of our nature and physical origins, rather than claiming that 'knowledge' of our spiritual origins will suffice.

Modern biologists are too busy trying to prevent and repair the diseases this so-called "intelligent designer" gave us to bother arguing with the fundamentalist nutjobs all day.

Don't forget about all the autoimmune diseases where our body decides to attack itself.

Very intelligent design.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

as to scientists trying to discover missing links and all that, the bear share of genetic and biological research, even directly related to evolution, is not focussed on making the theory more convincing to fundamentalists. you could look into what breakthroughs biological science has derived since darwin for some evidence of that. but i'm pleased that people are working toward understanding of our nature and physical origins, rather than claiming that 'knowledge' of our spiritual origins will suffice.

Modern biologists are too busy trying to prevent and repair the diseases this so-called "intelligent designer" gave us to bother arguing with the fundamentalist nutjobs all day.

Don't forget about all the autoimmune diseases where our body decides to attack itself.

Very intelligent design.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw]YouTube - Stupid Design[/ame]

 

[Father Time]

Modern biologists are too busy trying to prevent and repair the diseases this so-called "intelligent designer" gave us to bother arguing with the fundamentalist nutjobs all day.

Don't forget about all the autoimmune diseases where our body decides to attack itself.

Very intelligent design.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw]YouTube - Stupid Design[/ame]

Neil Tyson is always entertaining

 

[Father Time]

You know it's kinda funny that all these creationists are yelling about how under evolution we were supposed to evolve from rocks. The earliest forms of life were not rocks and rocks are not alive. The first life didn't come from rocks either but the first life is not evolution at all.

Although do tell me what was it god supposedly made humans out of? Oh right, dust.

 

[THE LIGHT]

And, just like Toyota, this designer had to learn from its mistakes and tinker around and slowly figure out how to make a 4Runner or a duck?

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. -Revelation 21:1

So your designer is a fuck-up who can't get anything right?

No, he is just dealing with a bunch of people on this earth that he gave a choice and THEY just can't seem to get it right.

 

[Dr Gregg]

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. -Revelation 21:1

So your designer is a fuck-up who can't get anything right?

No, he is just dealing with a bunch of people on this earth that he gave a choice and THEY just can't seem to get it right.

Joking I hope? LIke we have a choice what genetics we get, like kids born with horrible defects have a choice? Like people killed and living with pain and agony by god's supposed creation, microorganisms that kill us. Or like we have a choice when natural disasters kill and destroy people's lives. It's amazing the bullshit excuses people will make to give god a free pass on all the shit in the world.

 

[THE LIGHT]

A baby does not grow gills. That is another lie that has been taught over and over.

A lie taught from the pulpit, you mean!

Vertebrate embryos universally have prominent structures in their neck region that are called by various names in the scientific literature: branchial, pharyngeal, or visceral pouches or grooves or furrows or arches. Because they may appear as a repeating series of slits in the neck of the embryo, resembling the pattern of repeated elements in the neck of adult fish, they have also been colloquially called "gill slits" or "gill pouches." They are not, however, gills - and scientists have not been claiming that they are (Wells even quotes several authors, Wolpert and Rager, who explicitly state this simple, obvious fact). So what are they?

"Gill slits" are common structural elements of vertebrate craniofacial development. "Common" is the important term here. It turns out that all vertebrates build their face in the same, somewhat improbable and counterintuitive way; it is this deep similarity that is the root of the evolutionary argument that it reflects common ancestry.

The head of all vertebrate embryos, whether they are a fish or a human, can be simply described as a curved tube largely made up of presumptive brain (Figure 2), with a series of 4 to 7 finger-like tissues hanging down from it, the pharyngeal arches. What we consider a face, everything from just below the eyes, back to the ears, and down to the neck, is absent. Instead, we have these dangling blobs, each of which will contain a cartilaginous rod, a column of muscle, a significant branch of the circulatory system, and an assortment of other cell types. These arches are reiterated modules that will subsequently merge and rearrange themselves (along with other cranial tissues, most importantly a migrating population of cells from the top of the head called the neural crest) to form the more familiar face. They do so in similar ways in all vertebrates: the first pharyngeal arch, for instance, always forms the jaw, and the second arch always forms the hyoid. There are also differences that emerge in different classes. Pieces of the first two arches find their way into bones of the mammalian ear. The third and subsequent arches in fish end up in the gills, while those same arches in a human form a series of cartilages in the throat. The third fuses with the hyoid, the fourth forms a major part of the thyroid cartilage, and the fifth forms the cricoid and arytenoid cartilages. Non-cartilaginous elements of these structures end up incorporated into all kinds of tissues, glands and muscles and epithelia, of the neck and face.

Figure 2. Drawings of the developing human head and face between the 4th and 5th week (adapted from Nelson, 1953). The top row are side views, and the bottom row are face views of the same stages. The face develops from extensions and fusions of the pharyngeal arches, structures which are found in all other vertebrates, and which are modified in different ways in different species. Abbreviations: m, maxillary process (upper jaw); j, lower jaw; h, hyoid; n, nasal pit.

And then he tries to prove it with a spin off of Haeckel's Hoax to show how gullible he really is.

Sorry to dissapoint, but those are not gill slits. Those are pharyngeal pouches which develop into organs.

Has it ever occured to you that Humans never give birth to a fish?

Go tell this lady she has gill slits and if you come back with teeth left and/or without any foreign objects impaled in your cranium then we will talk.

Look ma, your turning into a fish.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. -Revelation 21:1

So your designer is a fuck-up who can't get anything right?

No, he is just dealing with a bunch of people on this earth that he gave a choice and THEY just can't seem to get it right.

Then he should have made them right the first time.

 

[THE LIGHT]

So your designer is a fuck-up who can't get anything right?

No, he is just dealing with a bunch of people on this earth that he gave a choice and THEY just can't seem to get it right.

Then he should have made them right the first time.

He did!

 

[edthecynic]

A baby does not grow gills. That is another lie that has been taught over and over.

A lie taught from the pulpit, you mean!

Vertebrate embryos universally have prominent structures in their neck region that are called by various names in the scientific literature: branchial, pharyngeal, or visceral pouches or grooves or furrows or arches. Because they may appear as a repeating series of slits in the neck of the embryo, resembling the pattern of repeated elements in the neck of adult fish, they have also been colloquially called "gill slits" or "gill pouches." They are not, however, gills - and scientists have not been claiming that they are (Wells even quotes several authors, Wolpert and Rager, who explicitly state this simple, obvious fact). So what are they?

"Gill slits" are common structural elements of vertebrate craniofacial development. "Common" is the important term here. It turns out that all vertebrates build their face in the same, somewhat improbable and counterintuitive way; it is this deep similarity that is the root of the evolutionary argument that it reflects common ancestry.

The head of all vertebrate embryos, whether they are a fish or a human, can be simply described as a curved tube largely made up of presumptive brain (Figure 2), with a series of 4 to 7 finger-like tissues hanging down from it, the pharyngeal arches. What we consider a face, everything from just below the eyes, back to the ears, and down to the neck, is absent. Instead, we have these dangling blobs, each of which will contain a cartilaginous rod, a column of muscle, a significant branch of the circulatory system, and an assortment of other cell types. These arches are reiterated modules that will subsequently merge and rearrange themselves (along with other cranial tissues, most importantly a migrating population of cells from the top of the head called the neural crest) to form the more familiar face. They do so in similar ways in all vertebrates: the first pharyngeal arch, for instance, always forms the jaw, and the second arch always forms the hyoid. There are also differences that emerge in different classes. Pieces of the first two arches find their way into bones of the mammalian ear. The third and subsequent arches in fish end up in the gills, while those same arches in a human form a series of cartilages in the throat. The third fuses with the hyoid, the fourth forms a major part of the thyroid cartilage, and the fifth forms the cricoid and arytenoid cartilages. Non-cartilaginous elements of these structures end up incorporated into all kinds of tissues, glands and muscles and epithelia, of the neck and face.

Figure 2. Drawings of the developing human head and face between the 4th and 5th week (adapted from Nelson, 1953). The top row are side views, and the bottom row are face views of the same stages. The face develops from extensions and fusions of the pharyngeal arches, structures which are found in all other vertebrates, and which are modified in different ways in different species. Abbreviations: m, maxillary process (upper jaw); j, lower jaw; h, hyoid; n, nasal pit.

And then he tries to prove it with a spin off of Haeckel's Hoax to show how gullible he really is.

Sorry to dissapoint, but those are not gill slits. Those are pharyngeal pouches which develop into organs.

Has it ever occured to you that Humans never give birth to a fish?

Go tell this lady she has gill slits and if you come back with teeth left and/or without any foreign objects impaled in your cranium then we will talk.

Look ma, your turning into a fish.

Obviously you read my post as carefully as you read the bible!

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

No, he is just dealing with a bunch of people on this earth that he gave a choice and THEY just can't seem to get it right.

Then he should have made them right the first time.

He did!

Then why'd he have to keep changing it? Are you saying that he's been making his creation worse?

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

A lie taught from the pulpit, you mean!

And then he tries to prove it with a spin off of Haeckel's Hoax to show how gullible he really is.

Sorry to dissapoint, but those are not gill slits. Those are pharyngeal pouches which develop into organs.

Has it ever occured to you that Humans never give birth to a fish?

Go tell this lady she has gill slits and if you come back with teeth left and/or without any foreign objects impaled in your cranium then we will talk.

Look ma, your turning into a fish.

Obviously you read my post as carefully as you read the bible!

Or at all, it seems.

 

[rdean]

No, he is just dealing with a bunch of people on this earth that he gave a choice and THEY just can't seem to get it right.

Then he should have made them right the first time.

He did!

You keep saying "he". Does God have a penis and a nutsack? Just curious.

 

[THE LIGHT]

A lie taught from the pulpit, you mean!

And then he tries to prove it with a spin off of Haeckel's Hoax to show how gullible he really is.

Sorry to dissapoint, but those are not gill slits. Those are pharyngeal pouches which develop into organs.

Has it ever occured to you that Humans never give birth to a fish?

Go tell this lady she has gill slits and if you come back with teeth left and/or without any foreign objects impaled in your cranium then we will talk.

Look ma, your turning into a fish.

Obviously you read my post as carefully as you read the bible!

So then, how is it a lie taught from the pulpit if you are agreeing with me?

Obviously, you made your post just to take up space on the page and it had no relevance to the post of mine to which you responded.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Then he should have made them right the first time.

He did!

Then why'd he have to keep changing it? Are you saying that he's been making his creation worse?

I am saying that there are people who fail to recognize their sinful state and choose not to accept the gift of eternal life through Jesus as their savior.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

So you're backtracking on evolution being God's work? Are we back to man being magically conjured in his current form?

 

[THE LIGHT]

So you're backtracking on evolution being God's work? Are we back to man being magically conjured in his current form?

I never claimed that God made things evolve from rocks. God only designed things to adapt to their surroundings and to be able to change so that we don't live in a world of robots where everyone looks exactly the same.

Can a computer programer code a program such that it can adapt to the user's input? Yes. Will that program ever evolve into being something other than a program? No.

 

[antagon]

So you're backtracking on evolution being God's work? Are we back to man being magically conjured in his current form?

I never claimed that God made things evolve from rocks. God only designed things to adapt to their surroundings and to be able to change so that we don't live in a world of robots where everyone looks exactly the same.

Can a computer programer code a program such that it can adapt to the user's input? Yes. Will that program ever evolve into being something other than a program? No.

what then do you say about adaptations in a population of the same species isolated and in a different environment than another population, or which have adapted to different elements of a mutual environment over time? when these populations fail to interbreed, and instead further isolate themselves socially or physically, and by extension genetically, doesn't that give rise to different species over time?

what in your paradigm whereby God has 'designed things to adapt' prevents divergence like i've described above, and which can be witnessed in nature? by accepting the mechanisms of natural selection and natural adaptation, aren't you accepting evolution after all?

 

[edthecynic]

And then he tries to prove it with a spin off of Haeckel's Hoax to show how gullible he really is.

Sorry to dissapoint, but those are not gill slits. Those are pharyngeal pouches which develop into organs.

Has it ever occured to you that Humans never give birth to a fish?

Go tell this lady she has gill slits and if you come back with teeth left and/or without any foreign objects impaled in your cranium then we will talk.

Look ma, your turning into a fish.

Obviously you read my post as carefully as you read the bible!

So then, how is it a lie taught from the pulpit if you are agreeing with me?

Obviously, you made your post just to take up space on the page and it had no relevance to the post of mine to which you responded.

How do you figure I'm agreeing with you???

It's a lie taught from the pulpit because science doesn't say they are gills, as the quote I cited that, like the bible you never bothered to read, said in no uncertain terms they were not gills. Calling them gills is a Straw Man Creationists fabricated because they know they can't disprove science any other way.