The Evolution Fraud

[Ringel05]

Attempting to prove God exists utilizing man's science is as foolish and fruitless as attempting to prove God doesn't exist utilizing man's science.

Agree. Which is why I have no faith in faith, especially if it's religious.
A belief in god does not rely in the realm of science, logic or reason.

The only statement which you just made which is accurate is that it doesn't rely in the realm of Francis Bacon's scientific methodology, within the realm of logic or reason, that's quite a different story, and there are many logical and rational arguments for God, but you won't read them, because electing to be ignorant of that or those is easier, more convenient, and less mentally taxing or the brain, allowing you to perpetuate and sustain the confirmation bias which makes life and your, likely rather small and insignificant approximation on reality more easily sustained, irregardless of whether it's true in any inherent sense - I believe Phillip Tetlock did a good job approximating and defining this simplistic, primitive "system 1" type of thinking, which ironically may be in and of itself, an archaic holdover from a more primitive and anti-intellectual day and age, or a part or humanity's archaic, and rather robotic or monotonous past, not seeking truth in any more dedicated sense of the term, just something simple, easy, mentally convenient which "makes sense" to people, whom even if it is harsh to label simple and stupid, it would nevertheless be right to label them ignorant, willfully or consequentially, whatever archaic "positive" purpose a degree or margin of ignorance might actually serve, given that one simply wouldn't have the time to be all-knowing of every thing or potential thing one might theoretically be able to know or learn to comprehend, even assuming they had an entire lifetime to devote to learning just one subject, whether a natural science, a philosophy, a computational or informational science, mathematics, an art, or anything else (some experts cite a 10,000 hour rule required to become a "master" at any subject or pursuit, such as Tiger Woods at Golf, or maybe someone like Issac Netwon in the natural sciences).

Such as how, in the above, you childishly and erroneously conflate science (as in Bacon's method, or the institution itself based on empiricism), with "rationality" or "logic", when the things aren't the same or remotely nonfloatable in any way, except in extremely childish, or simplistic slogans or axioms, written and marketed for an average or below average IQ score, which are meant to be easily repeatable, as if by rote, axioms and honesty thereof be damned.





I'm curious what definition of "religious" you're using to begin with.

Of course, that's all a verbose, useless, steaming pile of crap. Scientific method is logic. It is deductive reasoning, practiced in a way to eliminate possibilities and to know which possibilities can be eliminated.

Unfortunately science and the scientific method aren't always equal parts of the whole. We make postulations then set out to prove or disprove based on our collective yet still limited knowledge/experiences/observations. Also unfortunately some circumvent the scientific method to arrive at desired conclusions for a multitude of reasons. In most cases all we prove is that based on our knowledge that this is or isn't or in other words "The absence of evidence is not the the evidence of absence." Just because we have no evidence to turn a myth into a fact doesn't mean a myth isn't fact due to the lack of evidence. The lack of evidence simply means there's a lack of evidence and nothing more which is why some questions may never be answered scientifically.

The irony is that there's no "evolutionary" reason to "believe in evolution" to begin with, the notion of believing in or denying evolution is childish, archaic and entirely superstitious to begin with.

If it was more in our evolutionary interest to "deny it", than to believe in it or acknowledge it, then there's no reason to believe in it, the notion that believing in it as some silly "end in and of itself", like it's the Nicene Creed or something is absurd, and would in itself be an evolutionary maladaption, believing in something even to the point that it serves no meaningful or useful purpose or utility, or ends up being counter productive rather than productive.

Given that survival, procreation, mating, and simplistic behaviors like that have existed since the days of ancient humans, rarely if ever having any need for knowing what "evolution" is to begin with, and that many of the "internet atheists" who seem to fetishize evolution or simplistic notions or ideas of "science" to begin with, typically pale, with an IQ of maybe 105, often single, overweight, with more of an interest in "waifus" than finding a wife or girlfriend, seem to do quite a bit more "devolution" than any actual "evolution in practice"...

This could indicate that belief in or appealing to evolution itself is ironically an evolutionary maladaptation or recessive trait, while focusing on subjects of higher or superior aesthetic value, much as mathematics (as opposed to "math"), arts, music or other creative endeavours may be an evolutionary superior trait or area of focus in life).

(I believe there is a book on evolution called "Survival of the Beautiful" which documents this). As far as "science" itself as an enterprise or endeavor to begin with, the primary purpose of "science" as an end in and of itself is just an aesthetic end to begin with, akin to pure mathematics; scientists themselves say ultimately, that "science is just plain fun", and anything more pragmatic than that is simply a consequence or byproduct to begin with

Such as how, even in modern day hunter-gatherer tribes, which have met their basic material and survival needs for 80,000 years or more with no need for more modern technologies or endeavours (even then though, these cultures still have "creative" or "innovative" endeavors, such as arts or inventiveness, which I belive are ultimately just a fundamental part of our human nature, even if they would seem "primitive" by our standards today, such as it has been observed that animals display creative traits and activities such as artistic or musical, as "ends in and of themselves"

Basically, to put it in layman's terms it would appear that the only "god" you believe in is yourself..........

 

[Ringel05]

You appeared to take science and the scientific method as a form of gospel

Well, that's a "you" problem.

I take is as the best and, really, only method for discovering empirical knowledge.

Unlike the gospel, science invites any and all challenges. And new information will re write science books

That's about as "UNgospelly" as it gets.

That's the way you came accross so that's what I responded to.
I take empirical knowledge with a grain of salt in some areas because of our limitations which is why I try to keep an open mind concerning most aspects of science and metaphysics. I don't close my mind to evolution nor do I close my mind to the possible existence of God, closing my mind to either would be the epitome of human arrogance and ignorance.

 

[Ringel05]

You appeared to take science and the scientific method as a form of gospel

Well, that's a "you" problem.

I take is as the best and, really, only method for discovering empirical knowledge.

Unlike the gospel, science invites any and all challenges. And new information will re write science books

That's about as "UNgospelly" as it gets.

That's the way you came accross so that's what I responded to.
I take empirical knowledge with a grain of salt in some areas because of our limitations which is why I try to keep an open mind concerning most aspects of science and metaphysics. I don't close my mind to evolution nor do I close my mind to the possible existence of God, closing my mind to either would be the epitome of human arrogance and ignorance.

As for my use of the word "gospel" that was more of a rhetorical allegory.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You appeared to take science and the scientific method as a form of gospel

Well, that's a "you" problem.

I take is as the best and, really, only method for discovering empirical knowledge.

Unlike the gospel, science invites any and all challenges. And new information will re write science books

That's about as "UNgospelly" as it gets.

That's the way you came accross so that's what I responded to.
I take empirical knowledge with a grain of salt in some areas because of our limitations which is why I try to keep an open mind concerning most aspects of science and metaphysics. I don't close my mind to evolution nor do I close my mind to the possible existence of God, closing my mind to either would be the epitome of human arrogance and ignorance.

Fair enough.

But open-minded doesn't (or, at least, shouldn't) mean "willing to suspend incredulity". Science changes as new information arises. That is the very definition of open minded. And the exact opposite of religious and other various woo-woo and magical hooha.

 

[Ringel05]

You appeared to take science and the scientific method as a form of gospel

Well, that's a "you" problem.

I take is as the best and, really, only method for discovering empirical knowledge.

Unlike the gospel, science invites any and all challenges. And new information will re write science books

That's about as "UNgospelly" as it gets.

That's the way you came accross so that's what I responded to.
I take empirical knowledge with a grain of salt in some areas because of our limitations which is why I try to keep an open mind concerning most aspects of science and metaphysics. I don't close my mind to evolution nor do I close my mind to the possible existence of God, closing my mind to either would be the epitome of human arrogance and ignorance.

Fair enough.

But open-minded doesn't (or, at least, shouldn't) mean "willing to suspend incredulity". Science changes as new information arises. That is the very definition of open minded. And the exact opposite of religious and other various woo-woo and magical hooha.

That's what's known as a closed mind.........

 

[alang1216]

I'm aware it has too many "big words for you".

Cool crybabying!

You're not really impressing anyone,moron.

I'm probably in the top 1% percentile in terms of reading and linguistic ability - either improve your reading and literary comprehension, or quit crying, don't make me dumb stuff down, seriously.

You are an embarrassing evolution denier.

I'll deny evolution as much as I want to, and no - nothing will happen, no Flying Spaghetti Monster will smite me, no pirates will gang-rape me, or have me walk a proverbial plank.

I'll still get to make love to your wife or girlfriend, and do some actual "evolving" in practice, while you and the other hideous evolution fetishists spend your free time masturbating to anime and speculating on online forms whether or not your great great great grandad was conceived by rape or not, thereby spending your time "devolving", rather than actually evolving, as many a dashing young man has done since the caveman days, without even being naïve, bored, or desperate enough to care about the ugliness of evolution to begin with, at least as far as "mating success" goes. He he he.

Only an evolutionary ineffectual would have such a childish, simplistic view of evolution, as if it's a a god, or faithful little sky daddy for the superstitious for them to confide in every so faithfully, which can actually do anything to one who denies it.

My little pinky finger is obviously more powerful, potent, and significant than your archaic, and highly overrated 19th century theory is, which if not plagiarized or stolen out right from the various other evolutionary theories, having existed since the ancient Greeks and Hindus, or other contemporaries of Mr. Darwin himself, was at least entirely unoriginal, to the point that it had been a component of various folk wisdoms since the ancients, as well as a component of other theories and bodies of knowledge and information, such as legal or Common Law theory.

So go ahead, and continue to give your piety and penace to evolution, or "ugly-lution" as I prefer to call it lately, and please tell me when it actually cares, and actually grants you a beautiful or attractive mate for devotion and refusal to deny it, even at your own evolutionary expense, ironically - giving that talking about it in public places tends to be a aesthetic repellant, rather than aesthetic aid in the art of love and sex. Mhmm

You seem to be conflating the two parts of the theory of evolution into one.

The first part is decent from a common ancestor. The FACT that ALL life on earth is related and derived from previous life. There is overwhelming evidence for this FACT from every related field of science, including genetics, anatomy, and geology. To deny this is to deny what you yourself can see and study and has been generally accepted by science since ancient times. How that life first came to exist is not part of the theory of evolution.

The second part of the theory of evolution is the mechanism for HOW life evolved. The mechanism Darwin proposed, natural selection, was his great contribution. Is it the only mechanism? Probably not, it is still being studied and refined.

BTW, as a bit of advice, I know plenty of really smart people and they never brag about their smarts, they demonstrate them.

 

[Questioner]

So go ahead, and continue to give your piety and penace to evolution, or "ugly-lution" as I prefer to call it lately, and please tell me when it actually cares, and actually grants you a beautiful or attractive mate for devotion and refusal to deny it, even at your own evolutionary expense, ironically - giving that talking about it in public places tends to be a aesthetic repellant, rather than aesthetic aid in the art of love and sex. Mhmm

You seem to be conflating the two parts of the theory of evolution into one.

The first part is decent from a common ancestor. The FACT that ALL life on earth is related and derived from previous life. There is overwhelming evidence for this FACT from every related field of science, including genetics, anatomy, and geology. To deny this is to deny what you yourself can see and study and has been generally accepted by science since ancient times. How that life first came to exist is not part of the theory of evolution.
[/quote]
Correct, it's been a component of theories, folk wisdom, and other bodies of knowledge and authorship since the ancient times, as far back as pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, as well as a component of other theories and bodies of knowledge and wisdom, such as Oliver Wendall Holmes' treatise on the Common Law.

Showing that most of the popular myths and fables about evolution, Darwin, and so forth are dishonest, archaic, and historically ignorant, a mere product of propaganda and outdated 19th century ideas and folk notions, not science, in the modern sense of Francis Bacon and his inductive method, or in the context of any historical method or institution of knowledge, wisdom, thought, and the like.

The second part of the theory of evolution is the mechanism for HOW life evolved. The mechanism Darwin proposed, natural selection, was his great contribution. Is it the only mecha nism? Probably not, it is still being studied and refined.

BTW, as a bit of advice, I know plenty of really smart people and they never brag about their smarts, they demonstrate them.

Fair enough, that's apples to oranges has has no bearing on what's being discussed here.

 

[Questioner]

You appeared to take science and the scientific method as a form of gospel

Well, that's a "you" problem.

I take is as the best and, really, only method for discovering empirical knowledge.

Unlike the gospel, science invites any and all challenges. And new information will re write science books

That's about as "UNgospelly" as it gets.

That's the way you came accross so that's what I responded to.
I take empirical knowledge with a grain of salt in some areas because of our limitations which is why I try to keep an open mind concerning most aspects of science and metaphysics. I don't close my mind to evolution nor do I close my mind to the possible existence of God, closing my mind to either would be the epitome of human arrogance and ignorance.

Fair enough.

But open-minded doesn't (or, at least, shouldn't) mean "willing to suspend incredulity". Science changes as new information arises. That is the very definition of open minded. And the exact opposite of religious and other various woo-woo and magical hooha.

That would be, incorrect of course, and falsely dichtomic.

The idea that "religion" or religious systems haven't changed or developed over time is rather silly and historically false.

Much as, by the same token, the axiom or faith-based principle upon which methods such as Francis Bacon's scientific method, or inductive method being a desirable method to use, or the use of it in preference to other methods, never changes, as far as the institution of science and the axiom or axioms which its methodology is founded upon to begin with.

Many of the false and erroneous historical myths and fables, and their silly false dichotomies such as "science and religion", are merely propaganda, dogma, or misinformation designed to legitimize Bacon's method and its arbitrary parameters and an institution itself, despite being easily debunked and show to be erroneous and fictitious by a history of the development of Bacon's scientific or inductive method, as well as the development or potential development of other methods founded on different axioms altogether.

But this, of course would be lost on the under-literate and undereducated on the subjects, whose education on science to begin with usually stunts at a paltry 6th grade or K-12 level, which most scientific propaganda and media is marketed to. many of whom would even conflate archaic grading and learning methodologies, such as the K-12 system itself, with actual learning or depth of comprehension into science, or arguably any other subject of merit or validity.

Many of them falsely conflating lots of things altogether, such as conflating "deduction, or rationalism", with "induction, or empiricism" (the method which Bacon's system is founded upon), or conflating archaic, often 19th century philosophies, such as utilitarianism as per Bentham and Mill with "science", or conflating other bodies of theory, formal or informal with scientific theories, and what they are within the context of scientific jargon. (e.x. Some idiots I've encountered, for example, don't even know the difference between a "conspiracy theory" and a scientific theory, or don't know what a theory or body of abstraction is in the broadest sense to begin with, such as the Common Law theory, showing a lack of understanding of the difference between a theory in the broadest sense, or what the jargon or terminology of "theory" is as used specifically within the confines of Bacon's system, as opposed to outside of it, such as in Law or philosophy again, for example).

So no, the theory of evolution has no inherent worth in the real world, outside of the parameters of Bacon's methodology itself than any other body of theory, knowledge, wisdom and so forth, with some type of popular fetishization of Bacon's method, or that theory in specific being, ironically, against the themes and principles found in evolutionary theories to begin with.

Primarily just being a fad or trend of media indoctrination and propaganda, or those of an arrested K-12 education, or who are still stuck in 19th century archaism and social irrelevance, superciliously marketing Bacon's method or other trendy, popular notions of "science" to a demographic of that level, who have some disproportionate and arguably mythical notion or idea of it and what it means to begin with, not believing it because it's "true" in any inherent or axomatic sense, but merely because it's convenient, and it helps a very limited mind make sense of things in an overly simplistic and childish way, mainly simply because they were taught it, or perhaps are biased toward some industry coincidentally of their personal preference, and like those of the Midieval era who simply were too mentally limited to imagine life, or the real world without the Church, simply can't imagine life or the real world without popular 19th century science or scientific propaganda, only even able to rationalize or justify the axioms upon which Bacon's method is founded to begin with, by resorting to childish and intellectually inept false diethoxies, such as the entire "science / religion" dichotomy and myth to begin with, or other popular and ignorant ones such as "young earth creation and evolution", which I'm surprised are a subject of discussion among those who've read so much as a book, honestly, or even know how to spot and address the simplest "argument from authority and indoctrinative "fallacy" when they spot one... ah... how archaic and quaint indeed

 

[alang1216]

Correct, it's [decent from a common ancestor] been a component of theories, folk wisdom, and other bodies of knowledge and authorship since the ancient times, as far back as pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, as well as a component of other theories and bodies of knowledge and wisdom, such as Oliver Wendall Holmes' treatise on the Common Law.

Showing that most of the popular myths and fables about evolution, Darwin, and so forth are dishonest, archaic, and historically ignorant, a mere product of propaganda and outdated 19th century ideas and folk notions, not science, in the modern sense of Francis Bacon and his inductive method, or in the context of any historical method or institution of knowledge, wisdom, thought, and the like.

Just because the common traits of plants and animals are obvious to all doesn't mean they are not there. There is nothing in decent from a common ancestor or natural selection that violates the Baconian method.

 

[Questioner]

Correct, it's [decent from a common ancestor] been a component of theories, folk wisdom, and other bodies of knowledge and authorship since the ancient times, as far back as pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, as well as a component of other theories and bodies of knowledge and wisdom, such as Oliver Wendall Holmes' treatise on the Common Law.

Showing that most of the popular myths and fables about evolution, Darwin, and so forth are dishonest, archaic, and historically ignorant, a mere product of propaganda and outdated 19th century ideas and folk notions, not science, in the modern sense of Francis Bacon and his inductive method, or in the context of any historical method or institution of knowledge, wisdom, thought, and the like.

Just because the common traits of plants and animals are obvious to all doesn't mean they are not there. There is nothing in decent from a common ancestor or natural selection that violates the Baconian method.

The argument was about the Baconian method (induction) itself, not what, within the context and parameters of the method in question "violates" it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's what's known as a closed mind........

No idea what you meant, there.

 

[james bond]

There is nothing in decent from a common ancestor or natural selection that violates the Baconian method.

Not for natural selection as that is observable, but it's variations within a species. Not the common ancestor that is defined by Darwin. You are caught trying to introduce a false statement into a true, scientific observable one. One that was discovered by a creation scientist first. Typical of immoral atheist scientists, Darwin stole his claim saying he came up with it at the same time. If common ancestry is so common in plants and animals, then why does it not occur with today's creatures? Moreover, there is no transitional fossils that we see. In fact, there are absolute zero transitional fossils. All the human skulls or fossils they found are of people who lived in the past and died where they were found.

 

[james bond]

No idea what you meant, there.

I knew what he meant immediately. That's because you're a closed minded and hypocritical fool who believes in magic.

 

[alang1216]

There is nothing in decent from a common ancestor or natural selection that violates the Baconian method.

Not for natural selection as that is observable, but it's variations within a species. Not the common ancestor that is defined by Darwin. You are caught trying to introduce a false statement into a true, scientific observable one. One that was discovered by a creation scientist first. Typical of immoral atheist scientists, Darwin stole his claim saying he came up with it at the same time. If common ancestry is so common in plants and animals, then why does it not occur with today's creatures? Moreover, there is no transitional fossils that we see. In fact, there are absolute zero transitional fossils. All the human skulls or fossils they found are of people who lived in the past and died where they were found.

There is so much wrong with that statement but you've been told that many times so I won't bother repeating the reasons. I think you also been asked what a 'transitional fossil' is and what it would look like but I don't recall you giving an answer.

 

[james bond]

There is nothing in decent from a common ancestor or natural selection that violates the Baconian method.

Not for natural selection as that is observable, but it's variations within a species. Not the common ancestor that is defined by Darwin. You are caught trying to introduce a false statement into a true, scientific observable one. One that was discovered by a creation scientist first. Typical of immoral atheist scientists, Darwin stole his claim saying he came up with it at the same time. If common ancestry is so common in plants and animals, then why does it not occur with today's creatures? Moreover, there is no transitional fossils that we see. In fact, there are absolute zero transitional fossils. All the human skulls or fossils they found are of people who lived in the past and died where they were found.

There is so much wrong with that statement but you've been told that many times so I won't bother repeating the reasons. I think you also been asked what a 'transitional fossil' is and what it would look like but I don't recall you giving an answer.

There is nothing scientific in one of your statements except a false claim. I have pointed out neatly your attempt to put together a false statement with a true one in your argument. It is not I who is wrong, but you and it bears repeating that you made a false scientific claim. Thus, no common ancestry in plants and animals have happened due to lack of evidence.

Let's take the claim of a tailed to a tailess monkey as a transition. We do not observe it happen today. I would think we would see some kind of gradual shortening of the tail over time. That's two adequate pieces of evidence that we do not see. We still have tailed and tailless monkeys.

We also have see that the present isn't the key to the past. It's not just Charles Darwin who has been debunked, but Charles Lyell and James Hutton.

What can I say? Today's atheist scientists ignore too often evidence that goes against their evolution hypothesis.

 

[Ringel05]

That's what's known as a closed mind........

No idea what you meant, there.

It means you made up your mind about not "willing to suspend incredulity, religious and other various woo-woo and magical hooha." It means you've closed you mind to the possibility, that's something a true scientist never does.
Before you come back with "how can it be possible" look up the difference between the words possible and probable. Anything is possible not everything is probable.

 

[Hollie]

There is nothing in decent from a common ancestor or natural selection that violates the Baconian method.

Not for natural selection as that is observable, but it's variations within a species. Not the common ancestor that is defined by Darwin. You are caught trying to introduce a false statement into a true, scientific observable one. One that was discovered by a creation scientist first. Typical of immoral atheist scientists, Darwin stole his claim saying he came up with it at the same time. If common ancestry is so common in plants and animals, then why does it not occur with today's creatures? Moreover, there is no transitional fossils that we see. In fact, there are absolute zero transitional fossils. All the human skulls or fossils they found are of people who lived in the past and died where they were found.

There is so much wrong with that statement but you've been told that many times so I won't bother repeating the reasons. I think you also been asked what a 'transitional fossil' is and what it would look like but I don't recall you giving an answer.

There is nothing scientific in one of your statements except a false claim. I have pointed out neatly your attempt to put together a false statement with a true one in your argument. It is not I who is wrong, but you and it bears repeating that you made a false scientific claim. Thus, no common ancestry in plants and animals have happened due to lack of evidence.

Let's take the claim of a tailed to a tailess monkey as a transition. We do not observe it happen today. I would think we would see some kind of gradual shortening of the tail over time. That's two adequate pieces of evidence that we do not see. We still have tailed and tailless monkeys.

We also have see that the present isn't the key to the past. It's not just Charles Darwin who has been debunked, but Charles Lyell and James Hutton.

What can I say? Today's atheist scientists ignore too often evidence that goes against their evolution hypothesis.

The Theory of Evolution is among the best supported theories in science.

Supply a valid, supported, competing theory for the diversity office on the planet.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It means you made up your mind about not "willing to suspend incredulity, religious and other various woo-woo and magical hooha."

Then you misunderstand, as evidenced by your creative edit that misrepresents me.

People who believe those things will not change their minds in light of new info. That is close minded, by definition.

Yes, "hooha" is my current opinion of the 1000s of competing and conflicting religious myths, all completely unsupported by evidence. It's not close minded to have that opinion. That's where you stumble.

 

[james bond]

There is nothing in decent from a common ancestor or natural selection that violates the Baconian method.

Not for natural selection as that is observable, but it's variations within a species. Not the common ancestor that is defined by Darwin. You are caught trying to introduce a false statement into a true, scientific observable one. One that was discovered by a creation scientist first. Typical of immoral atheist scientists, Darwin stole his claim saying he came up with it at the same time. If common ancestry is so common in plants and animals, then why does it not occur with today's creatures? Moreover, there is no transitional fossils that we see. In fact, there are absolute zero transitional fossils. All the human skulls or fossils they found are of people who lived in the past and died where they were found.

There is so much wrong with that statement but you've been told that many times so I won't bother repeating the reasons. I think you also been asked what a 'transitional fossil' is and what it would look like but I don't recall you giving an answer.

There is nothing scientific in one of your statements except a false claim. I have pointed out neatly your attempt to put together a false statement with a true one in your argument. It is not I who is wrong, but you and it bears repeating that you made a false scientific claim. Thus, no common ancestry in plants and animals have happened due to lack of evidence.

Let's take the claim of a tailed to a tailess monkey as a transition. We do not observe it happen today. I would think we would see some kind of gradual shortening of the tail over time. That's two adequate pieces of evidence that we do not see. We still have tailed and tailless monkeys.

We also have see that the present isn't the key to the past. It's not just Charles Darwin who has been debunked, but Charles Lyell and James Hutton.

What can I say? Today's atheist scientists ignore too often evidence that goes against their evolution hypothesis.

The Theory of Evolution is among the best supported theories in science.

Supply a valid, supported, competing theory for the diversity office on the planet.

ToE is not being supported when you cannot answer why no evidence for tailed to tailless monkey. It's one of evos claims for common ancestor hypothesis leading to macroevolution a gigantic claim of one species becoming a completely different species.

Anyway, there is no need to go further because you rarely have any answers worth thinking about.

 

[james bond]

That's what's known as a closed mind........

No idea what you meant, there.

It means you made up your mind about not "willing to suspend incredulity, religious and other various woo-woo and magical hooha." It means you've closed you mind to the possibility, that's something a true scientist never does.
Before you come back with "how can it be possible" look up the difference between the words possible and probable. Anything is possible not everything is probable.

You hit the nail about Fort Fun Indiana. Not only is he closed minded, he gets a lot of things wrong. It's why he only argues using a lot of ad hominem attacks and general opinions. He doesn't have much of an education. May not have made it to HS.