The creationists are BACK

[logical4u]

Its called the theory of evolution because its an explanation of an observation not because its an untested thought experiment. Anyone whose point hinges on "evolution is just a theory" is a fucking idiot.

How about you tell my why its called "the theory of electricity". Just because its called a theory doesnt mean we dont know what electricity is.

Explain electricity, since "we" know what it is?

What? Electricity is the movement of electrons across a conductor. Point please?

Yes, another vague definiton for a very mysterious force. Does electricity exist without a conductor? If so, then your definition is lacking.

 

[logical4u]

Whats your point? Congrats on providing the stats for a subspecies of the lupus species. What does that prove? That example is variation within species, no one is arguing that. Of course variation within species exists thats a simple concept. Im trying to prove to you that animals that are not within the same species, are none the less undeniably related.

Are those three Jackal species i posted last page related at all? What about those three hominid skulls i linked to? What do you make of those?

There is not enough evidence with your "skulls". They have not found complete skeletons for most of these sites. The evidence is "filled in" with the scientists "beliefs of what the thing looked like". Could there be any other explanations (disease, famine, poison/disfigurement)? These are not considered or even mentioned. Because scientists have found a few skulls that are different, they are telling us that the species was different species long ago. Theoretically, if that was so, there would be many more skeletons (especially, since men tend to honor/bury their dead).

O and just one last point. Single bones mean nothing? For one, theres more than just single bones. Secondly, single bones mean a lot. What animal do you suppose those three skulls came from? Just some animals that came after primates first arose, before humans came, has humanoid DNA, and is shaped like a mixture of a human and ape?

Im sure its just a coincidence.

Are there any scientists that are saying the deceased had "degenerative" disease/injury? Seems you like the koolaid.

 

[cbirch2]

I was not aware there was a complete skeleton from a neanderthal man. Have they just discovered one? Pieces found all over the world from different animals put together to fullfill some scientist vision does not count as "fact".

1886: Two nearly perfect skeletons of a man and woman were found at Spy, Belgium at the depth of 16 ft with numerous Mousterian-type implements.
1908: A nearly complete Neanderthal skeleton was discovered in association with Mousterian tools and bones of extinct animals.
1953–1957: Ralph Solecki uncovered nine Neanderthal skeletons in Shanidar Cave in northern Iraq.

Neanderthal or Neandertal is an extinct species (Homo neanderthalensis) of the Homo genus that inhabited Europe and parts of western Asia from about 250,000 years ago until as recent as 30,000 years ago. At that point, they disappeared from the fossil record, being replaced by modern Homo sapiens. "Neanderthal" and "Neandertal" are optional spellings, but Neanderthal is more common in English and in scientific literature.

There is continued debate over whether Neanderthals should be classified as a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis, or as a subspecies of H. sapiens, labeled as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. The classification as a subspecies was popular in the 1970s and 1980s, but today many list them as separate species (Smithsonian 2007b).

Fossils of Neanderthals were first found in the eighteenth century prior to Charles Darwin's 1859 publication of The Origin of Species, with discoveries at Engis, Belgium in 1829, at Forbes Quarry, Gibraltar in 1848, and most notably a discovery in 1856 in Neander Valley in Germany, which was published in 1857. However, earlier findings were widely misinterpreted as skeletons of modern humans with deformities or disease (Gould 1990). The new species H. neanderthalensis was recognized in 1864.

Mayr claims that Neanderthals arose from Homo erectus, arguing, "There is little doubt that…the western populations of H. erectus eventually gave rise to the Neanderthals" (2001).

The issue of whether or how much Neanderthals contributed to the modern human genome is unsettled and remains vigorously debated (Kreger 2005). At least one group of scientists concludes from genetic studies that Neanderthals did not contribute genetic material to modern humans (Krings et al. 1997). One of the participants of this study argues, "These results [based on mitochondrial DNA extracted from Neanderthal bone] indicate that Neanderthals did not contribute mitochondrial DNA to modern humans… Neanderthals are not our ancestors" (PSU 1997). However, other scientists working from fossil evidence argue that Neanderthals interbred with humans and this assimilation is why they are extinct (Hayes 2006). Kreger surmises that the issue "is not as cut and dry" as is oftentimes claimed and it seems "highly unlikely that the Neanderthals contributed absolutely nothing to the modern genome" (2005).

Equally unsettled is why the Neanderthals disappeared.

More argument is focused on Neaderthals by academia of paleoanthropology than any other species (Kreger 2005).
from:
Neanderthal - New World Encyclopedia

It sounds like the scientist really don't know, yet you want it taught as absoulute fact?

This is interesting. You a fairly civil, coherent, and smart; a refresh from the others. I misinterpreted YOU as well. I thought you were claiming i thought modern humans were different species.

But there is no dispute as to whether or not humans, neanderthals, homo erectus, homo habilis, etc, etc are related. This part is absolutely correct:

"There is continued debate over whether Neanderthals should be classified as a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis, or as a subspecies of H. sapiens, labeled as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis"

Thats because the distinction between species may vary between biologists. Based on genetics and anatomy of a skeleton there is no definitive way to determine if the organism is sufficiently different, and therefore a new species or a not-yet-far-enough-diverged subspecies. Its a matter of opinion.

One would think, if they believed in evolution, that given enough time that difference would become large enough that biologists would agree the organism should be classified as a new species. Not that 5000 years is enough time to to see any vast distinction.

 

[cbirch2]

Explain electricity, since "we" know what it is?

What? Electricity is the movement of electrons across a conductor. Point please?

Yes, another vague definiton for a very mysterious force. Does electricity exist without a conductor? If so, then your definition is lacking.

Im not sure what this has to do with evolution. I guess if you include the electric field then electricity doesnt need a conductor. But what you think of as normal everyday electricity requires a conductor.

 

[cbirch2]

There is not enough evidence with your "skulls". They have not found complete skeletons for most of these sites. The evidence is "filled in" with the scientists "beliefs of what the thing looked like". Could there be any other explanations (disease, famine, poison/disfigurement)? These are not considered or even mentioned. Because scientists have found a few skulls that are different, they are telling us that the species was different species long ago. Theoretically, if that was so, there would be many more skeletons (especially, since men tend to honor/bury their dead).

O and just one last point. Single bones mean nothing? For one, theres more than just single bones. Secondly, single bones mean a lot. What animal do you suppose those three skulls came from? Just some animals that came after primates first arose, before humans came, has humanoid DNA, and is shaped like a mixture of a human and ape?

Im sure its just a coincidence.

Are there any scientists that are saying the deceased had "degenerative" disease/injury? Seems you like the koolaid.

Scientists were arguing that in the 1830's yea....

The only possibility is a genetic mutation, which IS evolution. Do you think their face somehow got smashed like that, but still smooth and in tact? And why does every fossil have some sort of malformation, in your opinion? Because its a genetic malformation spread through the population. aka evolution and natural selection.

And why do those malformations seem to lead towards the formation of the modern human skull and skeletal structure.

 

[Mr.Nick]

This thread clearly proves that evolution should be taught in biology class and ID and creationism in the humanities classroom. Good grief.

I know right. No matter how many facts we quote, they just keep up with this pseudoscientific nonsense.

Apparently somehow mutations cant spread throughout the population. They havent coherently explained that one yet. Its always "a dog always makes a dog", and then i hit my head off my keyboard in frustration like 10 times. Its so stupid....

Yeah, the spread right into the leftist posters mind, so what do we name the bacteria that makes you retarded?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The modern American, from responsible left to responsible right, knows that evolution is a theory, which is scientific fact. The far wack right can offer nothing to counter the evidence. That is the truth, Nick, and while you are entitled to your opinion, it is wrong. Come on, Nick up, man!

 

[Mr.Nick]

How are you a man or a female??

You're corn fed foolds.

 

[cbirch2]

This thread clearly proves that evolution should be taught in biology class and ID and creationism in the humanities classroom. Good grief.

I know right. No matter how many facts we quote, they just keep up with this pseudoscientific nonsense.

Apparently somehow mutations cant spread throughout the population. They havent coherently explained that one yet. Its always "a dog always makes a dog", and then i hit my head off my keyboard in frustration like 10 times. Its so stupid....

Yeah, the spread right into the leftist posters mind, so what do we name the bacteria that makes you retarded?

How are you a man or a female??

You're corn fed foolds.

Ad hominem.

I havent heard anything from you that is worthy of response. Try facts. And reading.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Pshaw, I do not. I know what proven fact is; it is the opposition's inability to comprehend the written word without altering what he hears to suit his agenda that muddies the waters here.

And his insistence that I've challenged the existence of evolution. He argues to a false premise. I find that annoying.

Im just trying to find out what animals you think are related. Apparently relation has nothing to do with evolution in your mind. But thats not surprising since you dont know what evolution is.

You make myself not be me...

I'm me, always will be..

 

[AllieBaba]

The modern American, from responsible left to responsible right, knows that evolution is a theory, which is scientific fact. The far wack right can offer nothing to counter the evidence. That is the truth, Nick, and while you are entitled to your opinion, it is wrong. Come on, Nick up, man!

Good lord.

Evolution within a species is fact.

Evolution as an explanation for diverse species is a theory.

Fact /= Theory

 

[Mr.Nick]

I know right. No matter how many facts we quote, they just keep up with this pseudoscientific nonsense.

Apparently somehow mutations cant spread throughout the population. They havent coherently explained that one yet. Its always "a dog always makes a dog", and then i hit my head off my keyboard in frustration like 10 times. Its so stupid....

Yeah, the spread right into the leftist posters mind, so what do we name the bacteria that makes you retarded?

How are you a man or a female??

You're corn fed foolds.

Ad hominem.

I havent heard anything from you that is worthy of response. Try facts. And reading.

I feel insulted...

Whats your beef.

Whats your factual gripe?

 

[cbirch2]

Yeah, the spread right into the leftist posters mind, so what do we name the bacteria that makes you retarded?

How are you a man or a female??

You're corn fed foolds.

Ad hominem.

I havent heard anything from you that is worthy of response. Try facts. And reading.

I feel insulted...

Whats your beef.

Whats your factual gripe?

I have no factual gripe. You havent said anything factual. I simply pointed out that all you have done so far is call people "corn fed foolds" and retarded.

You should feel insulted, because i insulted you. The difference between what i said and what you said is that i've been providing fact page after page.

 

[cbirch2]

The modern American, from responsible left to responsible right, knows that evolution is a theory, which is scientific fact. The far wack right can offer nothing to counter the evidence. That is the truth, Nick, and while you are entitled to your opinion, it is wrong. Come on, Nick up, man!

Good lord.

Evolution within a species is fact.

Evolution as an explanation for diverse species is a theory.

Fact /= Theory

Theres a nuance i dont want you to miss. Just because a theory isnt always a fact, doesnt mean a theory cannot be a fact. A theory is composed of facts and the observations that interwine them. It is composed of facts, but it can also itself be a fact.

Not that every theory is.

 

[AllieBaba]

I didn't miss that nuance.

I hate it when someone who knows less about a subject than I do thinks they are qualified to teach me anything about it.

 

[cbirch2]

I didn't miss that nuance.

I hate it when someone who knows less about a subject than I do thinks they are qualified to teach me anything about it.

Dont assume i know less than you. I was making sure were on the same level. Your the one that hasnt provided any facts.

 

[AllieBaba]

I know you know less than I do, and I also know you don't know a third of what you think you know.

I think you're learning and that's a good thing, but other than that, there's no point in arguing with someone who doesn't know his terminology and has difficulty with English comprehension.

 

[cbirch2]

I know you know less than I do, and I also know you don't know a third of what you think you know.

I think you're learning and that's a good thing, but other than that, there's no point in arguing with someone who doesn't know his terminology and has difficulty with English comprehension.

Can you provide one example of something you know that i do not? Like a specific example, not something like "evolution cant create species".

How about we go back to when you thought Canis was a species. That seems like the muddled information in this discussion to me. You dont understand taxonomic classification.

 

[AllieBaba]

Oh yawn.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm going to look up some I Survived episodes instead, methinks.