Marx, Math And Myth

[Hollie]

The errors of both Piltdown and Peking man were discovered and corrected by scientists.

That is an understatement. The Piltdown Man fooled an entire generation of people. People still believe that what are ape fossils are a hybrid ape-human fossil. Lucy was a mixture of animals fossils and still used. I think my chart shows all of the transitional fossils were fake. Thus, there were no real transitional fossils for homo genus.

Piltdown Man was an error corrected by scientists.

How does your link admit fraud and fooling an entire generation of people? It doesn't even refer to PM. You're just making excuses to protect your fairy tale beliefs in evolution. Otherwise, explain yourself using:

"The first solid evidence regarding the identity of the perpetrator emerged in 1996, two decades after a trunk marked with the initials M.A.C.H. had been discovered in storage at the British Museum. Upon analyzing bones found in the trunk, the British paleontologists Brian Gardiner and Andrew Currant found that they had been stained in the exact same way as the Piltdown fossils. The trunk apparently had belonged to Martin A.C. Hinton, who became keeper of zoology at the British Museum in 1936. Hinton, who in 1912 was working as a volunteer at the museum, may have treated and planted the Piltdown bones as a hoax in order to ensnare and embarrass Woodward, who had rebuffed Hinton’s request for a weekly wage. Hinton presumably used the bones in the steamer trunk for practice before treating the bones used in the actual hoax.

A second study, released in 2016, appeared to shift the responsibility for the hoax to Dawson. A reexamination of the Piltdown remains, which included spectroscopy and DNA analysis, strongly suggested that the fabricated remains were made by combining the bones of a single orangutan and no fewer than two human specimens. The remains from both sites showed similar patterns of chemical staining, gravel packed into spaces both between and within the bones, bone abrasion from filing, and the use of a cementing material reminiscent of dental putty to bind various bone fragments together—all of which were likely the work of one person. Although other parties may have been involved at various stages of the ruse, the study implicated Dawson as the common element at all of the important points of the story. He discovered the fossil remains at both sites and first brought attention to them by delivering them to Woodward. Other fossils were not discovered at the first site after Dawson’s passing, and he failed to reveal the exact location of the second site before his death. In addition, Dawson’s knowledge of archaeology and geology could have given him access to the skills with which to disguise the remains, and his desire for recognition by the scientific community, as evidenced by his ambition to become a fellow of the Royal Society, could have been Dawson’s purpose for creating the hoax."

Piltdown man | Discovery, Fossils, & Facts

Piltdown man, proposed species of extinct hominin (member of the human lineage) whose fossil remains, discovered in England in 1910–12, were later proved to be fraudulent. The fossils generated a controversy that lasted more than 40 years, and it was one of the most successful hoaxes in the...

www.britannica.com

My, my. Charles Dawson was another British fellow who wanted to go down in history as a member of the Royal Society.

You inadvertently confirmed that scientists discovered Piltdown Man was a misrepresentation and corrected the error.

So how about that shroud of Turin disaster. Have the religious institutions ever admitted that fraud?

How long did the Catholic Church manage to run its child abuse syndicate? That went on for decades, right?

 

[Hollie]

The errors of both Piltdown and Peking man were discovered and corrected by scientists.

That is an understatement. The Piltdown Man fooled an entire generation of people. People still believe that what are ape fossils are a hybrid ape-human fossil. Lucy was a mixture of animals fossils and still used. I think my chart shows all of the transitional fossils were fake. Thus, there were no real transitional fossils for homo genus.

Piltdown Man was an error corrected by scientists.

How does your link admit fraud and fooling an entire generation of people? It doesn't even refer to PM. You're just making excuses to protect your fairy tale beliefs in evolution. Otherwise, explain yourself using:

"The first solid evidence regarding the identity of the perpetrator emerged in 1996, two decades after a trunk marked with the initials M.A.C.H. had been discovered in storage at the British Museum. Upon analyzing bones found in the trunk, the British paleontologists Brian Gardiner and Andrew Currant found that they had been stained in the exact same way as the Piltdown fossils. The trunk apparently had belonged to Martin A.C. Hinton, who became keeper of zoology at the British Museum in 1936. Hinton, who in 1912 was working as a volunteer at the museum, may have treated and planted the Piltdown bones as a hoax in order to ensnare and embarrass Woodward, who had rebuffed Hinton’s request for a weekly wage. Hinton presumably used the bones in the steamer trunk for practice before treating the bones used in the actual hoax.

A second study, released in 2016, appeared to shift the responsibility for the hoax to Dawson. A reexamination of the Piltdown remains, which included spectroscopy and DNA analysis, strongly suggested that the fabricated remains were made by combining the bones of a single orangutan and no fewer than two human specimens. The remains from both sites showed similar patterns of chemical staining, gravel packed into spaces both between and within the bones, bone abrasion from filing, and the use of a cementing material reminiscent of dental putty to bind various bone fragments together—all of which were likely the work of one person. Although other parties may have been involved at various stages of the ruse, the study implicated Dawson as the common element at all of the important points of the story. He discovered the fossil remains at both sites and first brought attention to them by delivering them to Woodward. Other fossils were not discovered at the first site after Dawson’s passing, and he failed to reveal the exact location of the second site before his death. In addition, Dawson’s knowledge of archaeology and geology could have given him access to the skills with which to disguise the remains, and his desire for recognition by the scientific community, as evidenced by his ambition to become a fellow of the Royal Society, could have been Dawson’s purpose for creating the hoax."

Piltdown man | Discovery, Fossils, & Facts

Piltdown man, proposed species of extinct hominin (member of the human lineage) whose fossil remains, discovered in England in 1910–12, were later proved to be fraudulent. The fossils generated a controversy that lasted more than 40 years, and it was one of the most successful hoaxes in the...

www.britannica.com

My, my. Charles Dawson was another British fellow who wanted to go down in history as a member of the Royal Society.

Your emotional outbursts are an embarrassment.

Why not address a hoax that the hyper-religious still perpetuate?

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy

talkorigins.org

For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.

The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock).

A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.

 

[james bond]

You inadvertently confirmed that scientists discovered Piltdown Man was a misrepresentation and corrected the error.

No, I corrected and pointed out your obfuscation and whiny, poor excuse so you wouldn't have to tuck you tail between your legs and slink away for believing in the fairy tales of evolution.

So how about that shroud of Turin disaster. Have the religious institutions ever admitted that fraud?

How long did the Catholic Church manage to run its child abuse syndicate? That went on for decades, right?

How does that relate to S&T haha? Boy you must be p*ssed because of the peppered moth fiasco.

For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.

There are plenty of evidence for dinosaurs and humans living together, but you cannot accept it because of your belief in evolution. Yet, there is no evidence for aliens and humans co-existing nor aliens living in another part of the universe.

I have read that paleontologists have just scratched the surface in terms of dinosaur fossils. They found soft tissue inside them that shows they were more recent than millions of years old.

Now, how have the "man track" claims not have stood up to close scientific scrutiny?

ETA: One of the things I learned about the Paluxy river is that the dinosaur tracks follow the river. Do you agree? If they follow the river, then the tracks aren't millions of years old as the evolutionists claim. The claim the rocks at Paluxy are 111 million years old to "fit" with the dinosaur tracks. The Paluxy River has only been around a few thousand years. No river can last for millions of years.

 

[danielpalos]

You inadvertently confirmed that scientists discovered Piltdown Man was a misrepresentation and corrected the error.

No, I corrected and pointed out your obfuscation and whiny, poor excuse so you wouldn't have to tuck you tail between your legs and slink away for believing in the fairy tales of evolution.

So how about that shroud of Turin disaster. Have the religious institutions ever admitted that fraud?

How long did the Catholic Church manage to run its child abuse syndicate? That went on for decades, right?

How does that relate to S&T haha? Boy you must be p*ssed because of the peppered moth fiasco.

For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.

There are plenty of evidence for dinosaurs and humans living together, but you cannot accept it because of your belief in evolution. Yet, there is no evidence for aliens and humans co-existing nor aliens living in another part of the universe.

I have read that paleontologists have just scratched the surface in terms of dinosaur fossils. They found soft tissue inside them that shows they were more recent than millions of years old.

Now, how have the "man track" claims not have stood up to close scientific scrutiny?

ETA: One of the things I learned about the Paluxy river is that the dinosaur tracks follow the river. Do you agree? If they follow the river, then the tracks aren't millions of years old as the evolutionists claim. The claim the rocks at Paluxy are 111 million years old to "fit" with the dinosaur tracks. The Paluxy River has only been around a few thousand years. No river can last for millions of years.

Geologists not Paleontologists assert our planet is several billion years old. Plenty of time for macroevolution to happen through various forms of microevolution, along with any catastrophic events that have also occurred during that time. Oil is one example of macroevolutionary change due to climate change or catastrophe. Why do we not still have those animals now that were once prevalent in pre-history? Were they not able to adapt via genetic change? Why were others able to do so and are with us now, or if evolution does not happen, how can you explain their current existence?

Crude oil, or petroleum, and its refined components, collectively termed petrochemicals, are crucial resources in the modern economy. Crude oil originates from ancient fossilized organic materials, such as zooplankton and algae, which geochemical processes convert into oil.[8]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil

Are you trying to claim that microevolution does not happen?

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

We no longer have the same environmental factors that were once prevalent in antiquity. Our change in diet has let to forms of microevolution and to taller persons who used to be shorter, before their change in diet; a healthier diet could be causing that change.

For most people, contemporary buildings do not prompt similar claustrophobic concerns. The reason for this difference, as many people have correctly guessed, is that modern humans are taller than those from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In fact, over the last 150 years the average height of people in industrialized nations has increased approximately 10 centimeters (about four inches).

Why this relatively sudden growth? Are we evolving to greater heights, vertically speaking? Before answering these questions, we need to remember that evolution requires two things: variation in physical and/or behavioral traits among the individuals in a population; and a way of selecting some of those traits as adaptations, or advantages to reproduction.

Why are we getting taller as a species?

Scientific American is the essential guide to the most awe-inspiring advances in science and technology, explaining how they change our understanding of the world and shape our lives.

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[james bond]

Are you trying to claim that microevolution does not happen?

I think you are generalizing and pointing out in your statements that everyone thinks like you and believes what you do by your statements.

I think I demonstrated that the one the highlights of evolution in our high school and college textbooks -- the peppered moth -- was not true. No one can claim that HB Kettlewell's presuppositions or hypotheses he was trying to show were valid.

So, before we go on to whatever you are trying to show with your new topic (can you state in one or two sentences what you want to discuss or bringing up?), can we agree that microevolution did not happen with the peppered moth which is what you brought up? It shows you were wrong.

 

[danielpalos]

Are you trying to claim that microevolution does not happen?

I think you are generalizing and pointing out in your statements that everyone thinks like you and believes what you do by your statements.

I think I demonstrated that the one the highlights of evolution in our high school and college textbooks -- the peppered moth -- was not true. No one can claim that HB Kettlewell's presuppositions or hypotheses he was trying to show were valid.

So, before we go on to whatever you are trying to show with your new topic (can you state in one or two sentences what you want to discuss or bringing up?), can we agree that microevolution did not happen with the peppered moth which is what you brought up? It shows you were wrong.

I agree to disagree with your assessment. The micro-evolution found in natural selection must have had some effect. Otherwise, the peppered moth should have gone the way of the dinosaur by not being able to adapt and being predated into extinction. Are you trying to claim that the species we have now did not evolve through forms of microevolution, and that they existed on our planet since prehistory?

You would also need to claim that species that went extinct had no microevolutionary effect on species that were better able to adapt to the environment vacated by the extinct species.

 

[Hollie]

You inadvertently confirmed that scientists discovered Piltdown Man was a misrepresentation and corrected the error.

No, I corrected and pointed out your obfuscation and whiny, poor excuse so you wouldn't have to tuck you tail between your legs and slink away for believing in the fairy tales of evolution.

So how about that shroud of Turin disaster. Have the religious institutions ever admitted that fraud?

How long did the Catholic Church manage to run its child abuse syndicate? That went on for decades, right?

How does that relate to S&T haha? Boy you must be p*ssed because of the peppered moth fiasco.

For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.

There are plenty of evidence for dinosaurs and humans living together, but you cannot accept it because of your belief in evolution. Yet, there is no evidence for aliens and humans co-existing nor aliens living in another part of the universe.

I have read that paleontologists have just scratched the surface in terms of dinosaur fossils. They found soft tissue inside them that shows they were more recent than millions of years old.

Now, how have the "man track" claims not have stood up to close scientific scrutiny?

ETA: One of the things I learned about the Paluxy river is that the dinosaur tracks follow the river. Do you agree? If they follow the river, then the tracks aren't millions of years old as the evolutionists claim. The claim the rocks at Paluxy are 111 million years old to "fit" with the dinosaur tracks. The Paluxy River has only been around a few thousand years. No river can last for millions of years.

This is just another of your emotional outbursts.

There is no evidence for humans and dinosaurs living together. Outside of the the silly ID’iot creationer pathology, there is no evidence offered. Your “::: because I say so” comment offers nothing that anyone outside of a Christian madrassah would accept.

I have no belief in evolution. When data supports the theory and the theory makes testable predictions, the evidence does not require belief.

You make the mistake of being a slave to ID’iot creationer dogma in regard to the creationer fraud they tried to perpetrate with the Paluxy River footprints.

ID’iot creationer charlatans such as Carl Baugh and Don Patton are well known frauds pressing an agenda. Provide the peer reviewed data that Baugh and Patton presented to any science journal. Obviously you can’t because ID’iot creationer charlatans do no research.


Claim CC101:
Human and dinosaur footprints have been found together in Cretaceous rocks of the Paluxy Riverbed near Glen Rose, Texas.

Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 122.

CC101: Paluxy River footprints

www.talkorigins.org

Response:

1. The alleged human footprints involve a number of misidentified and spurious phenomena.
   • Most supposed "man tracks" in the riverbed are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks-- made by dinosaurs that at times impressed their metatarsi (soles and heels) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-collapse, erosion, infilling, or a combination of factors, the remaining metatarsal portions often superficially resemble human footprints. However, when well cleaned such tracks show definite indications of tridactyl, dinosaurian digit patterns (Kuban, 1986a, 1986b; Hastings, 1987).
   • Some of the reputed human prints are erosional features or other natural irregularities. They do not show clear human features without selective highlighting, nor occur in natural striding sequences (Cole et al, 1985).
   • A smaller number of alleged "giant man tracks" are carvings on loose blocks of rock (Godfrey, 1985; Kuban and Wilkerson, 1989).
2. Creationists often failed to exercise scientific rigor and due caution in their early Paluxy field work and promotions. Subseqwuently many also mischaracterized or minimized the mainstream work and alalyses which prompted creationist reevaluations of the evidence (Schadewald, 1986; Kuban, 1986c). However, most no longer use the Paluxy tracks among their arguments, and major creationist organizations such as ICR and AIG have advised that the Paluxy tracks not be cited as evidence against evolution. Continuing "man track" claims by a few individuals such as Carl Baugh and Don Patton have not stood up to close scrutiny (Kuban, 1989).

 

[danielpalos]

Dog breeding is a form of microevolution; some species would not exist but for that.

 

[james bond]

The micro-evolution found in natural selection must have had some effect.

That's what I asked you. Where is the microevolution? The alleles for color were already present for both light and dark PMs. Also, Kittlewell was wrong with his hypotheses. That adds up to evolutionists got zilch.

Otherwise, the peppered moth should have gone the way of the dinosaur by not being able to adapt and being predated into extinction. Are you trying to claim that the species we have now did not evolve through forms of microevolution, and that they existed on our planet since prehistory?

Haha. Good one. You mean the peppered moth would be made extinct by asteroid?

 

[james bond]

You inadvertently confirmed that scientists discovered Piltdown Man was a misrepresentation and corrected the error.

No, I corrected and pointed out your obfuscation and whiny, poor excuse so you wouldn't have to tuck you tail between your legs and slink away for believing in the fairy tales of evolution.

So how about that shroud of Turin disaster. Have the religious institutions ever admitted that fraud?

How long did the Catholic Church manage to run its child abuse syndicate? That went on for decades, right?

How does that relate to S&T haha? Boy you must be p*ssed because of the peppered moth fiasco.

For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.

There are plenty of evidence for dinosaurs and humans living together, but you cannot accept it because of your belief in evolution. Yet, there is no evidence for aliens and humans co-existing nor aliens living in another part of the universe.

I have read that paleontologists have just scratched the surface in terms of dinosaur fossils. They found soft tissue inside them that shows they were more recent than millions of years old.

Now, how have the "man track" claims not have stood up to close scientific scrutiny?

ETA: One of the things I learned about the Paluxy river is that the dinosaur tracks follow the river. Do you agree? If they follow the river, then the tracks aren't millions of years old as the evolutionists claim. The claim the rocks at Paluxy are 111 million years old to "fit" with the dinosaur tracks. The Paluxy River has only been around a few thousand years. No river can last for millions of years.

This is just another of your emotional outbursts.

There is no evidence for humans and dinosaurs living together. Outside of the the silly ID’iot creationer pathology, there is no evidence offered. Your “::: because I say so” comment offers nothing that anyone outside of a Christian madrassah would accept.

I have no belief in evolution. When data supports the theory and the theory makes testable predictions, the evidence does not require belief.

You make the mistake of being a slave to ID’iot creationer dogma in regard to the creationer fraud they tried to perpetrate with the Paluxy River footprints.

ID’iot creationer charlatans such as Carl Baugh and Don Patton are well known frauds pressing an agenda. Provide the peer reviewed data that Baugh and Patton presented to any science journal. Obviously you can’t because ID’iot creationer charlatans do no research.


Claim CC101:
Human and dinosaur footprints have been found together in Cretaceous rocks of the Paluxy Riverbed near Glen Rose, Texas.

Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 122.

CC101: Paluxy River footprints

www.talkorigins.org

Response:

1. The alleged human footprints involve a number of misidentified and spurious phenomena.
   • Most supposed "man tracks" in the riverbed are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks-- made by dinosaurs that at times impressed their metatarsi (soles and heels) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-collapse, erosion, infilling, or a combination of factors, the remaining metatarsal portions often superficially resemble human footprints. However, when well cleaned such tracks show definite indications of tridactyl, dinosaurian digit patterns (Kuban, 1986a, 1986b; Hastings, 1987).
   • Some of the reputed human prints are erosional features or other natural irregularities. They do not show clear human features without selective highlighting, nor occur in natural striding sequences (Cole et al, 1985).
   • A smaller number of alleged "giant man tracks" are carvings on loose blocks of rock (Godfrey, 1985; Kuban and Wilkerson, 1989).
2. Creationists often failed to exercise scientific rigor and due caution in their early Paluxy field work and promotions. Subseqwuently many also mischaracterized or minimized the mainstream work and alalyses which prompted creationist reevaluations of the evidence (Schadewald, 1986; Kuban, 1986c). However, most no longer use the Paluxy tracks among their arguments, and major creationist organizations such as ICR and AIG have advised that the Paluxy tracks not be cited as evidence against evolution. Continuing "man track" claims by a few individuals such as Carl Baugh and Don Patton have not stood up to close scrutiny (Kuban, 1989).

Did I disagree that the human and dinosaur footprints have been found? No need to refer to your biased talk origins.

What I said was the many of the dinosaur tracks follow the Paluxy River. It means the river was already there before the dinos walked in it. The evos have said these tracks and its sediment layers are 111 M years old. They didn't consider the tracks follow the river. However, the thin sediment layers of the river do not show the river is that old. It's not even listed in your wikipedia -- List of rivers by age - Wikipedia. Thus, can I state the Earth is thousands of years old than millions haha? Nah, it means the evos have a contradiction on their hands.

P.S. Are you going to change wikipedia to add Paluxy River as 111 million years old now haha?

 

[james bond]

Dog breeding is a form of microevolution; some species would not exist but for that.

Link? I know something about dog breeding and I think you're the one who brought it up before. Where is the microevolution?

 

[Rigby5]

I agree to disagree. The English proved microevolution with the peppered moth. If microevolution can happen, so must macroevolution. Are you on the Right Wing?

Haha. Just how did the British prove microevolution with the peppered moth? Both light and dark moths existed during the time.

I agree. Millions of years of microevolution can seem like a form of intelligent design in macroevolution.

It difficult to picture what happens in millions of years. There are these so-called changes we can document and place with certain fossil layers, but we don't see the changes of macroevolution which are two -- humans from chimps and birds from dinosaurs. Both have been debunked. For example, no chimps, apes, or monkeys walk bipedal. Even the bear can walk bipedal more than the monkeys. As for microevolution changes by natural selection, I would say they have been misrepresented with descent from common ancestor and tree of life.

Incorrect.

No one ever said or believes that humans came from chimps, apes, or any monkey that exists now.
Humans came from the same primates that chimps, apes, and monkeys came from.
Bipedal walking is something a species gets good at when there are no local trees to provide a better alternative to bipedal walking.
There were several bipedal primates before humans.
And there are other primates that walk bipedal now, such as gibbons and indriids.

As for birds from dinosaurs, birds are dinosaurs, so I do not know what you mean?
Lots of dinosaurs had feathers, and many could fly.
So birds did not come from dinosaurs, but are dinosaurs, and for some reason did not go extinct.
Likely it was their better egg protection in elevated nests.

Microevolution can not have been misinterpreted because they show a continual tree that leads back so far it has to be considered macoevolution.

 

[Rigby5]

Dog breeding is a form of microevolution; some species would not exist but for that.

Link? I know something about dog breeding and I think you're the one who brought it up before. Where is the microevolution?

Dog breeding is just hybrids of existing DNA and is not evolution of any kind.
It takes mutations for evolution, and that can't happen to dogs in terms of human observation.
It takes millions of years.

 

[Rigby5]

You inadvertently confirmed that scientists discovered Piltdown Man was a misrepresentation and corrected the error.

No, I corrected and pointed out your obfuscation and whiny, poor excuse so you wouldn't have to tuck you tail between your legs and slink away for believing in the fairy tales of evolution.

So how about that shroud of Turin disaster. Have the religious institutions ever admitted that fraud?

How long did the Catholic Church manage to run its child abuse syndicate? That went on for decades, right?

How does that relate to S&T haha? Boy you must be p*ssed because of the peppered moth fiasco.

For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.

There are plenty of evidence for dinosaurs and humans living together, but you cannot accept it because of your belief in evolution. Yet, there is no evidence for aliens and humans co-existing nor aliens living in another part of the universe.

I have read that paleontologists have just scratched the surface in terms of dinosaur fossils. They found soft tissue inside them that shows they were more recent than millions of years old.

Now, how have the "man track" claims not have stood up to close scientific scrutiny?

ETA: One of the things I learned about the Paluxy river is that the dinosaur tracks follow the river. Do you agree? If they follow the river, then the tracks aren't millions of years old as the evolutionists claim. The claim the rocks at Paluxy are 111 million years old to "fit" with the dinosaur tracks. The Paluxy River has only been around a few thousand years. No river can last for millions of years.

Wrong.
Tracks do NOT have to follow a river.
A river can exist, disappear for millions of years, and a new river can replace it at the same location.
And yes, rivers can last for millions of years.
The Amazon River for example, is 12 million years old.

 

[james bond]

No one ever said or believes that humans came from chimps, apes, or any monkey that exists now.
Humans came from the same primates that chimps, apes, and monkeys came from.
Bipedal walking is something a species gets good at when there are no local trees to provide a better alternative to bipedal walking.
There were several bipedal primates before humans.
And there are other primates that walk bipedal now, such as gibbons and indriids.

No, Jonathan Wells has said the creation paleontologists have studied the fossils of plants and animals in the same layer as dinosaur fossils and they are the same creatures that exist today. I even presented a list of fossils that were presented over the years by evolutionists and they turned out to be misrepresentations, frauds, and fakes. It clearly is a case of evolutionists making an argument up like you are to back evolution.

Here is your claim:

Instead, we get this:

and

Ernst Haeckel -- Evolution frauds

Again, when I ask for evidence of macroevolution and those previous bipedal primates or evidence of microevolution and small changes, I get misrepresentations, frauds, and fakes.

 

[james bond]

Wrong.
Tracks do NOT have to follow a river.
A river can exist, disappear for millions of years, and a new river can replace it at the same location.
And yes, rivers can last for millions of years.
The Amazon River for example, is 12 million years old.

Tracks do not have to follow the river, but the majority of these tracks follow the Paluxy River. It shows the river was there before or at the same time as the dinosaurs and the great beasts were following the river. Sure, there is a minority of dino tracks crossing the river or at angle, but the majority follow the flow of the river. Certainly, this is a contradiction for the evolutionists.

>>A river can exist, disappear for millions of years, and a new river can replace it at the same location.
And yes, rivers can last for millions of years.<<

Did you just make that up haha? Show that for the Paluxy. It was the evolutionists that said the tracks were 111 million years old. However, they didn't realize most of the tracks followed the river. Thus, they are caught in a contradiction as the physical evidence of the river, light sedimentary layer buildup, show that it is thousands of years old.

I provided a list of the oldest rivers from wikipedia which has bias towards evolution and no Paluxy river -- List of rivers by age - Wikipedia.

 

[Rigby5]

No one ever said or believes that humans came from chimps, apes, or any monkey that exists now.
Humans came from the same primates that chimps, apes, and monkeys came from.
Bipedal walking is something a species gets good at when there are no local trees to provide a better alternative to bipedal walking.
There were several bipedal primates before humans.
And there are other primates that walk bipedal now, such as gibbons and indriids.

No, Jonathan Wells has said the creation paleontologists have studied the fossils of plants and animals in the same layer as dinosaur fossils and they are the same creatures that exist today. I even presented a list of fossils that were presented over the years by evolutionists and they turned out to be misrepresentations, frauds, and fakes. It clearly is a case of evolutionists making an argument up like you are to back evolution.

Here is your claim:

Instead, we get this:

and

Ernst Haeckel -- Evolution frauds

Again, when I ask for evidence of macroevolution and those previous bipedal primates or evidence of microevolution and small changes, I get misrepresentations, frauds, and fakes.

Totally false.
We can date the rock dinosaur fossils are found in and they are over 100 million years old.
At which time ALL the plants and animals are entirely different.
None are the same.
Which proves evolution, because modern plants and animals did not exist then.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong.
Tracks do NOT have to follow a river.
A river can exist, disappear for millions of years, and a new river can replace it at the same location.
And yes, rivers can last for millions of years.
The Amazon River for example, is 12 million years old.

Tracks do not have to follow the river, but the majority of these tracks follow the Paluxy River. It shows the river was there before or at the same time as the dinosaurs and the great beasts were following the river. Sure, there is a minority of dino tracks crossing the river or at angle, but the majority follow the flow of the river. Certainly, this is a contradiction for the evolutionists.

>>A river can exist, disappear for millions of years, and a new river can replace it at the same location.
And yes, rivers can last for millions of years.<<

Did you just make that up haha? Show that for the Paluxy. It was the evolutionists that said the tracks were 111 million years old. However, they didn't realize most of the tracks followed the river. Thus, they are caught in a contradiction as the physical evidence of the river, light sedimentary layer buildup, show that it is thousands of years old.

I provided a list of the oldest rivers from wikipedia which has bias towards evolution and no Paluxy river -- List of rivers by age - Wikipedia.

Humans might follow a river because they may need it for helping to navigate, especially is one does not have a map.
But dinosaurs would NEVER follow a river.
They would not be trying to get somewhere and would not be using the river to navigate.

Rivers also exist based on elevations, and if there has been no massive tectonic shifts in elevation, then the conditions that cause a river do not ever have to go away.

 

[Hollie]

You inadvertently confirmed that scientists discovered Piltdown Man was a misrepresentation and corrected the error.

No, I corrected and pointed out your obfuscation and whiny, poor excuse so you wouldn't have to tuck you tail between your legs and slink away for believing in the fairy tales of evolution.

So how about that shroud of Turin disaster. Have the religious institutions ever admitted that fraud?

How long did the Catholic Church manage to run its child abuse syndicate? That went on for decades, right?

How does that relate to S&T haha? Boy you must be p*ssed because of the peppered moth fiasco.

For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.

There are plenty of evidence for dinosaurs and humans living together, but you cannot accept it because of your belief in evolution. Yet, there is no evidence for aliens and humans co-existing nor aliens living in another part of the universe.

I have read that paleontologists have just scratched the surface in terms of dinosaur fossils. They found soft tissue inside them that shows they were more recent than millions of years old.

Now, how have the "man track" claims not have stood up to close scientific scrutiny?

ETA: One of the things I learned about the Paluxy river is that the dinosaur tracks follow the river. Do you agree? If they follow the river, then the tracks aren't millions of years old as the evolutionists claim. The claim the rocks at Paluxy are 111 million years old to "fit" with the dinosaur tracks. The Paluxy River has only been around a few thousand years. No river can last for millions of years.

This is just another of your emotional outbursts.

There is no evidence for humans and dinosaurs living together. Outside of the the silly ID’iot creationer pathology, there is no evidence offered. Your “::: because I say so” comment offers nothing that anyone outside of a Christian madrassah would accept.

I have no belief in evolution. When data supports the theory and the theory makes testable predictions, the evidence does not require belief.

You make the mistake of being a slave to ID’iot creationer dogma in regard to the creationer fraud they tried to perpetrate with the Paluxy River footprints.

ID’iot creationer charlatans such as Carl Baugh and Don Patton are well known frauds pressing an agenda. Provide the peer reviewed data that Baugh and Patton presented to any science journal. Obviously you can’t because ID’iot creationer charlatans do no research.


Claim CC101:
Human and dinosaur footprints have been found together in Cretaceous rocks of the Paluxy Riverbed near Glen Rose, Texas.

Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 122.

CC101: Paluxy River footprints

www.talkorigins.org

Response:

1. The alleged human footprints involve a number of misidentified and spurious phenomena.
   • Most supposed "man tracks" in the riverbed are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks-- made by dinosaurs that at times impressed their metatarsi (soles and heels) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-collapse, erosion, infilling, or a combination of factors, the remaining metatarsal portions often superficially resemble human footprints. However, when well cleaned such tracks show definite indications of tridactyl, dinosaurian digit patterns (Kuban, 1986a, 1986b; Hastings, 1987).
   • Some of the reputed human prints are erosional features or other natural irregularities. They do not show clear human features without selective highlighting, nor occur in natural striding sequences (Cole et al, 1985).
   • A smaller number of alleged "giant man tracks" are carvings on loose blocks of rock (Godfrey, 1985; Kuban and Wilkerson, 1989).
2. Creationists often failed to exercise scientific rigor and due caution in their early Paluxy field work and promotions. Subseqwuently many also mischaracterized or minimized the mainstream work and alalyses which prompted creationist reevaluations of the evidence (Schadewald, 1986; Kuban, 1986c). However, most no longer use the Paluxy tracks among their arguments, and major creationist organizations such as ICR and AIG have advised that the Paluxy tracks not be cited as evidence against evolution. Continuing "man track" claims by a few individuals such as Carl Baugh and Don Patton have not stood up to close scrutiny (Kuban, 1989).

Did I disagree that the human and dinosaur footprints have been found? No need to refer to your biased talk origins.

What I said was the many of the dinosaur tracks follow the Paluxy River. It means the river was already there before the dinos walked in it. The evos have said these tracks and its sediment layers are 111 M years old. They didn't consider the tracks follow the river. However, the thin sediment layers of the river do not show the river is that old. It's not even listed in your wikipedia -- List of rivers by age - Wikipedia. Thus, can I state the Earth is thousands of years old than millions haha? Nah, it means the evos have a contradiction on their hands.

P.S. Are you going to change wikipedia to add Paluxy River as 111 million years old now haha?

You are apparently utterly confused. The tracks found in the Paluxy River are weathered dinosaur tracks.

The planet is billions of years old, not mere thousands. The planet is globular in shape, not flat. You may not take issue with your ID'iot creationer ministries taking advantage of your fears and superstitions but facts are important.

 

[Hollie]

No one ever said or believes that humans came from chimps, apes, or any monkey that exists now.
Humans came from the same primates that chimps, apes, and monkeys came from.
Bipedal walking is something a species gets good at when there are no local trees to provide a better alternative to bipedal walking.
There were several bipedal primates before humans.
And there are other primates that walk bipedal now, such as gibbons and indriids.

No, Jonathan Wells has said the creation paleontologists have studied the fossils of plants and animals in the same layer as dinosaur fossils and they are the same creatures that exist today. I even presented a list of fossils that were presented over the years by evolutionists and they turned out to be misrepresentations, frauds, and fakes. It clearly is a case of evolutionists making an argument up like you are to back evolution.

Here is your claim:

Instead, we get this:

and

Ernst Haeckel -- Evolution frauds

Again, when I ask for evidence of macroevolution and those previous bipedal primates or evidence of microevolution and small changes, I get misrepresentations, frauds, and fakes.

It's important to note that ID'iot creationers do no research and publish in no peer reviewed journals.

Collecting pictures from ID'iot creationer websites is really a meaningless exercise. It represents only that you have cut and pasted a collection of pictures.

Using the charlatan Jonathan Wells as a source for cutting and pasting pictures is simply perpetrating a fraud.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

We have us another major loon on our hands for this entry, namely the infamous John Corrigan “Jonathan” Wells.

Wells is an intelligent design creationist (in fact, he is just as often described as an “anti-evolution activist”, which is revealing) and a prominent member of the Discovery Institute. He is also a pronounced Moonie – indeed, a “Unification Church Marriage Expert” – and has been known to be involved in AIDS denialism together with his old friend and mentor Phillip Johnson. It is as a creationist (or “intelligent design proponent”) that he has made the biggest impact, however – though it was allegedly his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers that convinced him to devote his life to “destroying Darwinism”.

Wells happens to be one of the few Discotute creationist with legitimate credentials, a Ph.D. in biological science, which he completed – according to himself – for the sole purpose of “debunking” evolution. He has not yet succeeded in debunking evolution, of course, but has certainly been caught lying, gish galloping, data mangling, quote-mining, misrepresenting evidence, moving goalposts, and spewing nonsense a respectable number of times. A fantastic example of Wells trying to link Darwinism to Nazism is discussed here.

Wells is the author of “Icons of Evolution” and “Regnery Publishing’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design”, both of which failed to survive even cursory glances from people who actually know anything about evolution; a truly substantial analysis and critique if Icons can be found here. But then, the purpose of the former was explicitly to argue that creationism should be taught in public schools – and for those purposes the actual science is of course less important, since the creationists cannot win on that battlefield anyways (a point that is well made in this review of the Politically Incorrect Guide; after all, the whole frame is that Darwinism has declared war on traditional Christianity; the science is just a pretense). Wells’s lack of understanding of development and evolution (and science) is duly documented; he does, in short, not have the faintest idea, and can obviously not be bothered to look it up either (because, you know, fact checks won't yield the results he wants).

True to form, Wells also wrote the “Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution” for high school students (published by the Discovery Institute). They are answered here and here. Instead of trying to point to any shortcomings with the answers, though, Wells prefers to repeat the questions as if nothing has happened, since that is rhetorically more effective, and the goal is to win debates, not find out what's actually the case.

He also participated in the Kansas evolution hearings and has been featured on a Starbucks’s “The Way I See It”.

His newest book, “The Myth of Junk DNA”, discusses the phenomenon of junk DNA, a phenomenon that heartily offends Intelligent Design proponents insofar as it suggests that not everything in the universe has a purpose. The book is just as well-informed as his previous books, and responses to the first three chapters can be found here, here, and here.

Diagnosis: Appallingly inane crackpot, infuriatingly dense, and reprehensibly dishonest, Wells’s lack of insight and inability to even pretend to begin to understand anything before he starts criticizing it based on personal dislike, is of almost epic proportions. Yet he continues to be shockingly influential.