Education's Greatest Crime!

[PoliticalChic]

Sorry PC, people like you, who have already demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, the depths of their scientific ignorance, hardly get to define what science is and is not.

"the depths of their scientific ignorance,"

Now...be honest.....I know more about the science of evolution than you do......that has been shown time and again:

I provide specific facts showing the fallacy of Darwinism.....and you post "is not, is not."



That's the truth.....isn't it?

No, you haven't. All you've done is trot out the same tired canards, misrepresentations, obscurations, and outright falsehoods that the God Squad always points out. They've been shot down dozens of times all over the internet, in books, in classrooms, and in undergraduate textbooks, but you continue to use them, not because they are effective or logical, but because the "Darwinists" just quit trying.

You're no different than 9/11 truthers, moon hoaxers, JFK conspiracists, sovereign citizens, holocaust deniers, AIDS deniers, geocentrists, flat earthers, water engine conspiratists, free energy, and a million other whackjobs. All you can do is take a complicated subject, yell loudly, and confuse normal folk and proclaim you win when scientists just quit trying to explain the reality of the issue. You're like a puppy who keeps goading an older dog into playing. You don't realize that the older dog just doesn't care. Go yap and nip and tug. We'll be around to play later, promise.

It would be laughable if your kind didn't keep getting elected to school boards.

OK, moron.....

What is the proof for evolution?
Any examples of one species becoming another?


Waiting.

 

[G.T.]

"the depths of their scientific ignorance,"

Now...be honest.....I know more about the science of evolution than you do......that has been shown time and again:

I provide specific facts showing the fallacy of Darwinism.....and you post "is not, is not."



That's the truth.....isn't it?

No, you haven't. All you've done is trot out the same tired canards, misrepresentations, obscurations, and outright falsehoods that the God Squad always points out. They've been shot down dozens of times all over the internet, in books, in classrooms, and in undergraduate textbooks, but you continue to use them, not because they are effective or logical, but because the "Darwinists" just quit trying.

You're no different than 9/11 truthers, moon hoaxers, JFK conspiracists, sovereign citizens, holocaust deniers, AIDS deniers, geocentrists, flat earthers, water engine conspiratists, free energy, and a million other whackjobs. All you can do is take a complicated subject, yell loudly, and confuse normal folk and proclaim you win when scientists just quit trying to explain the reality of the issue. You're like a puppy who keeps goading an older dog into playing. You don't realize that the older dog just doesn't care. Go yap and nip and tug. We'll be around to play later, promise.

It would be laughable if your kind didn't keep getting elected to school boards.

OK, moron.....

What is the proof for evolution?
Any examples of one species becoming another?


Waiting.

How do you presume that science has concluded that we've evolved from other primates?

Simple - the human fossil record not only puts us closer and closer to the chimpanzee form the older the fossil, but also the difference in our DNA is less than 2%.

When overwhelming dna evidence is there, and overwhelming fossil evidence is there, those sane individuals who work can offer a pretty solid conclusion.

But more directly towards your question, there are fossil records:

Evolution and the Fossil Record by John Pojeta, Jr. and Dale A. Springer


Leave science to the grown ups, because to understand it you have to interpret data - - - - - not just read it, think that it says what it doesn't really say, and then go ahead and copy paste it & gloat.

 

[G.T.]

Also, it doesn't get more insecure than posting the same deranged OP's over and over and over again, and not just keeping them nice and tidy in the same fucking thread, like a normal person would.

 

[G.T.]

Google "transitional fossils."

I cant believe you even asked that question, tbh.

 

[Steven_R]

"the depths of their scientific ignorance,"

Now...be honest.....I know more about the science of evolution than you do......that has been shown time and again:

I provide specific facts showing the fallacy of Darwinism.....and you post "is not, is not."



That's the truth.....isn't it?

No, you haven't. All you've done is trot out the same tired canards, misrepresentations, obscurations, and outright falsehoods that the God Squad always points out. They've been shot down dozens of times all over the internet, in books, in classrooms, and in undergraduate textbooks, but you continue to use them, not because they are effective or logical, but because the "Darwinists" just quit trying.

You're no different than 9/11 truthers, moon hoaxers, JFK conspiracists, sovereign citizens, holocaust deniers, AIDS deniers, geocentrists, flat earthers, water engine conspiratists, free energy, and a million other whackjobs. All you can do is take a complicated subject, yell loudly, and confuse normal folk and proclaim you win when scientists just quit trying to explain the reality of the issue. You're like a puppy who keeps goading an older dog into playing. You don't realize that the older dog just doesn't care. Go yap and nip and tug. We'll be around to play later, promise.

It would be laughable if your kind didn't keep getting elected to school boards.

OK, moron.....

What is the proof for evolution?
Any examples of one species becoming another?


Waiting.

Ring species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

Google "transitional fossils."

I cant believe you even asked that question, tbh.

1. "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).



2. Archaeopteryx has a starring role in the article you cite......but it is simply suggesting an evolutionary path.

"Now Archaeopteryx is sinking back into the crowd of primitive birds and feathered dinosaurs. As Ed Yong has ably explained, a fresh wave of fossils are coming to light. They reinforce the argument that paleontologists have agreed on for a couple decades now: birds evolved from a lineage of dinosaurs called theropods. But it’s less clear now how exactly Archaeopteryx fits into that evolution."
Archaeopteryx?s Evolutionary Humiliation Continues ? Phenomena: The Loom



The fact that you accept the gaps, the guesses, the conjecture hardly proves the theory.
Evidence is lacking.

You should simply say you have "faith" in the theory.

 

[G.T.]

Fossilization is a rare event. You cant learn until you play devils advocate with yourself.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, you haven't. All you've done is trot out the same tired canards, misrepresentations, obscurations, and outright falsehoods that the God Squad always points out. They've been shot down dozens of times all over the internet, in books, in classrooms, and in undergraduate textbooks, but you continue to use them, not because they are effective or logical, but because the "Darwinists" just quit trying.

You're no different than 9/11 truthers, moon hoaxers, JFK conspiracists, sovereign citizens, holocaust deniers, AIDS deniers, geocentrists, flat earthers, water engine conspiratists, free energy, and a million other whackjobs. All you can do is take a complicated subject, yell loudly, and confuse normal folk and proclaim you win when scientists just quit trying to explain the reality of the issue. You're like a puppy who keeps goading an older dog into playing. You don't realize that the older dog just doesn't care. Go yap and nip and tug. We'll be around to play later, promise.

It would be laughable if your kind didn't keep getting elected to school boards.

OK, moron.....

What is the proof for evolution?
Any examples of one species becoming another?


Waiting.

How do you presume that science has concluded that we've evolved from other primates?

Simple - the human fossil record not only puts us closer and closer to the chimpanzee form the older the fossil, but also the difference in our DNA is less than 2%.

When overwhelming dna evidence is there, and overwhelming fossil evidence is there, those sane individuals who work can offer a pretty solid conclusion.

But more directly towards your question, there are fossil records:

Evolution and the Fossil Record by John Pojeta, Jr. and Dale A. Springer


Leave science to the grown ups, because to understand it you have to interpret data - - - - - not just read it, think that it says what it doesn't really say, and then go ahead and copy paste it & gloat.

In “Science,” 1975, M-C King and A.C. Wilson published an exhaustive paper estimating the degree of similarity between the human and the chimpanzee genome. This documented the degree of similarity between the two! Hence, we must be one with apes! But…in the second part of their thesis King and Wilson describe honestly the deficiencies of such an idea:

“ The molecular similarity between chimpanzees and humans is extraordinary because they differ far more than sibling species in anatomy and way of
life. Although humans and chimpanzees are rather similar in the structure of
the thorax and arms, they differ substantially not only in brain size but also in the anatomy of the pelvis, foot, and jaws, as well as in relative lengths of limbs and digits (38). Humans and chimpanzees also differ significantly in many other anatomical respects, to the extent that nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape or size from its human counterpart (38). Associated with these anatomical differences there are, of course, major differences in posture (see cover picture), mode of locomotion, methods of procuring food, and means of communication. Because of these major differences in anatomy and way of life, biologists place thetwo species not just in separate genera but in separate families (39) . So it appears that molecular and organismal methods of evaluating the chimpanzee human difference yield quite different conclusions (40).”
http://academic.reed.edu/biology/pr...431s05_examples/king_wilson_1975(classic).pdf

 

[G.T.]

Lol...wow.

Read read roll eyes roll eyes....."ahhh...sometbing i agree with! Well, we'll go with that."

 

[NYcarbineer]

"the depths of their scientific ignorance,"

Now...be honest.....I know more about the science of evolution than you do......that has been shown time and again:

I provide specific facts showing the fallacy of Darwinism.....and you post "is not, is not."



That's the truth.....isn't it?

No, you haven't. All you've done is trot out the same tired canards, misrepresentations, obscurations, and outright falsehoods that the God Squad always points out. They've been shot down dozens of times all over the internet, in books, in classrooms, and in undergraduate textbooks, but you continue to use them, not because they are effective or logical, but because the "Darwinists" just quit trying.

You're no different than 9/11 truthers, moon hoaxers, JFK conspiracists, sovereign citizens, holocaust deniers, AIDS deniers, geocentrists, flat earthers, water engine conspiratists, free energy, and a million other whackjobs. All you can do is take a complicated subject, yell loudly, and confuse normal folk and proclaim you win when scientists just quit trying to explain the reality of the issue. You're like a puppy who keeps goading an older dog into playing. You don't realize that the older dog just doesn't care. Go yap and nip and tug. We'll be around to play later, promise.

It would be laughable if your kind didn't keep getting elected to school boards.

OK, moron.....

What is the proof for evolution?
Any examples of one species becoming another?


Waiting.

Your extra Y chromosome. lol

But seriously. Hybrid speciation.

Think of the coyote and the domestic dog. Probably not an example scientists would use, but I do, because it's simple and straightforward.

Dogs and coyotes are 2 different species, but they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring,

thus proving or at worst strongly suggesting they have a common ancestor that was neither dog nor coyote, but a single species of its own.

And since the so-called coydog is neither just dog nor just coyote, and since it is capable of reproducing, and its offspring would also not be either of the dog species, nor the coyote,

it's logical to assume that over time, in certain circumstances, a new canine species altogether could emerge.

In fact, the red wolf is considered a hybrid speciation of wolf and coyote, although some debate that conclusion

That's the theoretical. For the real, read the link below.

Hybrid speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Steven_R]

Google "transitional fossils."

I cant believe you even asked that question, tbh.

They were put in the ground by the Devil.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Google "transitional fossils."

I cant believe you even asked that question, tbh.

1. "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).



2. Archaeopteryx has a starring role in the article you cite......but it is simply suggesting an evolutionary path.

"Now Archaeopteryx is sinking back into the crowd of primitive birds and feathered dinosaurs. As Ed Yong has ably explained, a fresh wave of fossils are coming to light. They reinforce the argument that paleontologists have agreed on for a couple decades now: birds evolved from a lineage of dinosaurs called theropods. But it’s less clear now how exactly Archaeopteryx fits into that evolution."
Archaeopteryx?s Evolutionary Humiliation Continues ? Phenomena: The Loom



The fact that you accept the gaps, the guesses, the conjecture hardly proves the theory.
Evidence is lacking.

You should simply say you have "faith" in the theory.

If you are capable of believing in things for which there is no evidence, and what you believe is a comfort,

you ought to spend more time being thankful for that, and less time defiling it with arrogance and spite.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Google "transitional fossils."

I cant believe you even asked that question, tbh.

1. "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).



2. Archaeopteryx has a starring role in the article you cite......but it is simply suggesting an evolutionary path.

"Now Archaeopteryx is sinking back into the crowd of primitive birds and feathered dinosaurs. As Ed Yong has ably explained, a fresh wave of fossils are coming to light. They reinforce the argument that paleontologists have agreed on for a couple decades now: birds evolved from a lineage of dinosaurs called theropods. But it’s less clear now how exactly Archaeopteryx fits into that evolution."
Archaeopteryx?s Evolutionary Humiliation Continues ? Phenomena: The Loom



The fact that you accept the gaps, the guesses, the conjecture hardly proves the theory.
Evidence is lacking.

You should simply say you have "faith" in the theory.

If you are capable of believing in things for which there is no evidence, and what you believe is a comfort,

you ought to spend more time being thankful for that, and less time defiling it with arrogance and spite.

What the heck is that terrible smell......????

Oh...it's you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Google "transitional fossils."

I cant believe you even asked that question, tbh.

They were put in the ground by the Devil.

More likely they will tell you that the earth looks old because God made it look old to fool you;

at that point, all hope of rational discourse is gone.

Religion is not rational. That is not a disparagement; it's a description.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).



2. Archaeopteryx has a starring role in the article you cite......but it is simply suggesting an evolutionary path.

"Now Archaeopteryx is sinking back into the crowd of primitive birds and feathered dinosaurs. As Ed Yong has ably explained, a fresh wave of fossils are coming to light. They reinforce the argument that paleontologists have agreed on for a couple decades now: birds evolved from a lineage of dinosaurs called theropods. But it’s less clear now how exactly Archaeopteryx fits into that evolution."
Archaeopteryx?s Evolutionary Humiliation Continues ? Phenomena: The Loom



The fact that you accept the gaps, the guesses, the conjecture hardly proves the theory.
Evidence is lacking.

You should simply say you have "faith" in the theory.

If you are capable of believing in things for which there is no evidence, and what you believe is a comfort,

you ought to spend more time being thankful for that, and less time defiling it with arrogance and spite.

What the heck is that terrible smell......????

Oh...it's you.

Isn't it somewhat odd that I, the heathen, tend to sound more Christian than you,

the professed Christian?

The other irony, more to the topic, is that religion, particularly Christianity,

seeks salvation,

but the seeking of salvation itself is a manifestion of our instinct for survival,

which is a trait we acquired through Evolution.

 

[Steven_R]

Google "transitional fossils."

I cant believe you even asked that question, tbh.

They were put in the ground by the Devil.

More likely they will tell you that the earth looks old because God made it look old to fool you;

at that point, all hope of rational discourse is gone.

Religion is not rational. That is not a disparagement; it's a description.

I've said it before. The Creationists/YEC/IDer/Whatver they are calling themselves this week would be laughable except they keep getting elected to school boards and state houses. It's bad enough that they intentionally hamstring their own children's science education, but they have the ability to do it to everyone's children.

 

[Newby]

If you are capable of believing in things for which there is no evidence, and what you believe is a comfort,

you ought to spend more time being thankful for that, and less time defiling it with arrogance and spite.

What the heck is that terrible smell......????

Oh...it's you.

Isn't it somewhat odd that I, the heathen, tend to sound more Christian than you,

the professed Christian?

The other irony, more to the topic, is that religion, particularly Christianity,

seeks salvation,

but the seeking of salvation itself is a manifestion of our instinct for survival,

which is a trait we acquired through Evolution.

From what did we evolve from that gave us that trait? What animial posesses a moral compass or worries about right and wrong?

 

[G.T.]

What the heck is that terrible smell......????

Oh...it's you.

Isn't it somewhat odd that I, the heathen, tend to sound more Christian than you,

the professed Christian?

The other irony, more to the topic, is that religion, particularly Christianity,

seeks salvation,

but the seeking of salvation itself is a manifestion of our instinct for survival,

which is a trait we acquired through Evolution.

From what did we evolve from that gave us that trait? What animial posesses a moral compass or worries about right and wrong?

Evolution doesn't require a new trait to have pre existed. It's a mutation.

But - morals, or codified behaviors, are definitely observed in nature. If you think the "moral compass" requires religion, I can give you a valid & logical explanation for where each and every one came from without it (Religion) and so that necessarily debunks that notion.

 

[Newby]

Isn't it somewhat odd that I, the heathen, tend to sound more Christian than you,

the professed Christian?

The other irony, more to the topic, is that religion, particularly Christianity,

seeks salvation,

but the seeking of salvation itself is a manifestion of our instinct for survival,

which is a trait we acquired through Evolution.

From what did we evolve from that gave us that trait? What animial posesses a moral compass or worries about right and wrong?

Evolution doesn't require a new trait to have pre existed. It's a mutation.

But - morals, or codified behaviors, are definitely observed in nature. If you think the "moral compass" requires religion, I can give you a valid & logical explanation for where each and every one came from without it (Religion) and so that necessarily debunks that notion.

What did we 'mutate' from?

 

[G.T.]

From what did we evolve from that gave us that trait? What animial posesses a moral compass or worries about right and wrong?

Evolution doesn't require a new trait to have pre existed. It's a mutation.

But - morals, or codified behaviors, are definitely observed in nature. If you think the "moral compass" requires religion, I can give you a valid & logical explanation for where each and every one came from without it (Religion) and so that necessarily debunks that notion.

What did we 'mutate' from?

Simple celled organisms first appearing roughly 3 and a half billion years ago