More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

[abu afak]

Are you?

If I were a paleontologist, you can bet that I would look at bones, not drawings of bones.


Well, this is certainly an emotional topic for you.

Yes, Piltdown Man is not 100% identical to H. Naledi. Mainly because no one thing is ever 100% identical to anything else.

Maybe I should see if there are any other hoaxes of evolutionary science and start a thread about that.

Ya think?

I think/KNOW you're a FRAUD, who in fact 'replies' but Never Answers.

You can't discredit Millions of Fossils found/unearthed by Tens of thousands of scientists with your Idiotic citing of a 100 year old One-man fraud.
That one man fraud debunked BY science.

You're a non sequitur clown whose looking for tiny exceptions.

`

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I think/KNOW you're a FRAUD, who in fact 'replies' but Never Answers.

You can't discredit Millions of Fossils found/unearthed by Tens of thousands of scientists with your Idiotic citing of a 100 year old One-man fraud.
That one man fraud debunked BY science.

You're a non sequitur clown whose looking for tiny exceptions.

`

a fraud that was science for decades.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

a fraud that was science for decades.

No it wasn't. Now you're just kind of flailing.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No it wasn't. Now you're just kind of flailing.

41 years it was accepted. Piltdown Man - Wikipedia

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

41 years it was accepted. Piltdown Man - Wikipedia

That does not mean "it was science". furthermore, it was just a hoax example of ideas that have been confirmed many times over from 1000s of other fossil finds.

This would be like me pointing at a time when Christians said the world would end, when it then didn't, and saying "Therefore Christianity is false."

But you are so rabid, desperate, and eager to have ANYTHING AT ALL here that you are just clinging to embarrassing horseshit.

 

[abu afak]

41 years it was accepted. Piltdown Man - Wikipedia

Evolution has been going 160 years and throughout an explosion of new sciences in that time.
All relevant ones have either not contradicted it or Helped Confirm it (DNA, Isotopic dating etc)
It didn't and doesn't depend on ONE bogus find.

Millions of fossils have been found by Thousands of credible people.
One fossil in the wrong strata could have disproved it.
Of course, none has.
If, ie, humans were ('special' and) made different genetically with ie, XYZ or solid state with no DNA, that too would Disprove Evo.
Instead we are just part of a traceable chain/branch of Evo.

Evo is only controversial because of Indoctrinated Biblical literalists like you can't deal with the contradictions with Genesis.
(Same with Islamic FundaMENTALcases and the Koran)

Now go check the propane tank so it doesn't blow up the trailer.
`

 

[Seymour Flops]

I think/KNOW you're a FRAUD, who in fact 'replies' but Never Answers.

You can't discredit Millions of Fossils found/unearthed by Tens of thousands of scientists with your Idiotic citing of a 100 year old One-man fraud.
That one man fraud debunked BY science.

You're a non sequitur clown whose looking for tiny exceptions.

`

It isn't the fossils that need to be "debunked."

It's the fact that researchers (I can't call them scientists) take fossil that are bone fragments and embellish them in drawings and modelling material to make them seem to show things that they simply do not show.

 

[Seymour Flops]

That does not mean "it was science". furthermore, it was just a hoax example of ideas that have been confirmed many times over from 1000s of other fossil finds.

OK, then.

Show me the fossils that have confirmed something and tell what you think they have confirmed.

This would be like me pointing at a time when Christians said the world would end, when it then didn't, and saying "Therefore Christianity is false."

Christianity is false.

The large number of hoaxes that have been perpetuated in the name of Christianity are indeed evidence of its falseness.

But you are so rabid, desperate, and eager to have ANYTHING AT ALL here that you are just clinging to embarrassing horseshit.

Do people ever seriously respond to statements like that from you, or is not giving them anything that can be logically responded to part of the plan to cover up your incredible ignorance on topics that you debate?

 

[abu afak]

Christianity is false.

The large number of hoaxes that have been perpetuated in the name of Christianity are indeed evidence of its falseness.

So ""WHO Sent the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs just at the right time""?

`

 

[Seymour Flops]

So ""WHO Sent the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs just at the right time""?

`

Assumes facts not in evidence.

No one knows how dinosaurs died off. My favorite among the theories is that nocturnal mammals ate their eggs. Unlike Darwinians with their favorite theory, I openly admit that my favorite theory is just a theory that I happen to like.

 

[abu afak]

Assumes facts not in evidence.

No one knows how dinosaurs died off. My favorite among the theories is that nocturnal mammals ate their eggs. Unlike Darwinians with their favorite theory, I openly admit that my favorite theory is just a theory that I happen to like.

But that was YOUR statement.
And in fact, the meteor itself is Certainly In evidence. Just not Your claim that anyone "sent it."
What an idiot.
Allah?
Vishnu?
`

 

[Seymour Flops]

But that was YOUR statement.
And in fact, the meteor itself is Certainly In evidence. Just not Your claim that anyone "sent it."
What an idiot.
Allah?
Vishnu?
`

MY statement?

I don't remember making any statement about meteor's killing off dinosaurs.

But if you have a picture of that meteor with proof that it killed off the dinosaurs, I'd like to see it.

I'll happily change my mind if enough evidence is provided. Unlike Darwinians, my whole self-worth is not tied up in one particular theory about what happened millions of years ago.

 

[abu afak]

MY statement?
I don't remember making any statement about meteor's killing off dinosaurs.

But if you have a picture of that meteor with proof that it killed off the dinosaurs, I'd like to see it.

I'll happily change my mind if enough evidence is provided. Unlike Darwinians, my whole self-worth is not tied up in one particular theory about

You said it in THIS thread LIAR Boy:
Post #352
and you said it was not a coincidence.

More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

In the grand scheme of things there is still more evidence of creation than of evolution. :bow3: In the grander scheme of grand schemes, it hasn't gone unnoticed that the creationers offer no evidence to support their claims to supernatural creation.

www.usmessageboard.com

Seymour Flops said:
Who sent the Meteor that came right in time for the smart little rodent proto-mammals to be saved from the far less intelligent, but ravenously hunting dinosaurs?
Was that another co-inkie-dink?

MY answer then

​

""Now you're really outing yourself boy.​

YES!​

Oh yeah, 'god sent the meteor.'​

And what is that?​

An 'intelligent'/'designed' way to work?​

Wiping out more than half of 'his creation' because it was imperfect/a Mistake.​

Punishing the dinosaurs and much other life for their sins!! LOL​

Billions of years wasted, billions of species extinct Instead of more coherent True 'design' to get to where we are now?​

You just set your @ss on fire again.​

​

Go back to Creation-con or AIG.​

None of them could debate me either.​

Seymour Flops again.​

`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Seymour Flops said:

"
Who sent the Meteor that came right in time for the smart little rodent proto-mammals to be saved from the far less intelligent, but ravenously hunting dinosaurs?
Was that another co-inkie-dink?"


Hahahahahahahah

oh my goodness how embarrassingly stupid....

 

[Hollie]

It isn't the fossils that need to be "debunked."

It's the fact that researchers (I can't call them scientists) take fossil that are bone fragments and embellish them in drawings and modelling material to make them seem to show things that they simply do not show.

There are obviously complete fossils, more than 6,000 years old, that document a planet which produced an astonishingly broad spectrum of life. Ignorance and denial of facts on your part is your problem to deal with.

 

[Seymour Flops]

There are obviously complete fossils, more than 6,000 years old, that document a planet which produced an astonishingly broad spectrum of life. Ignorance and denial of facts on your part is your problem to deal with.

Oh good!

Now maybe we're getting somewhere.

Show me - in your very next reply, please - three of the best examples of complete fossils and how they prove that Darwinian evolution is fact, not theory.

 

[Hollie]

Oh good!

Now maybe we're getting somewhere.

Show me - in your very next reply, please - three of the best examples of complete fossils and how they prove that Darwinian evolution is fact, not theory.

On the other hand, you can find examples of complete fossils with a search engine. I can think of three museums that have displays of many examples. With a search engine, you can find those. Change in populations over time subject to environmental factors is a component of Darwinian theory. That has been proven.

Show me the ID'iot creationer ''General Theory of The Gawds Did It''. As you rattle on with your frantic, anti-science Jihad, you refuse to make any defendable case for your gods and why those gods played such a cruel joke on you.

 

[Seymour Flops]

On the other hand, you can find examples of complete fossils with a search engine. I can think of three museums that have displays of many examples. With a search engine, you can find those. Change in populations over time subject to environmental factors is a component of Darwinian theory. That has been proven.

Yes, changes cause other changes. If theres a freeze, and 95% of a species population die out the remaining 5% would likely be the ones with more fur, more fat, more traits that resist cold.

Could that be how new species originate? That's a possibility but it is far to great a leap to declare that possibility a fact.

The species population whose less resistant to cold individuals have died out are still the same species. If the cold persists, so will they. As THE SAME SPECIES. If the cold recedes, the species will regress toward the mean. As THE SAME SPECIES.

Darwin presented a somewhat plausible but highly unlikely theory of the origin of species. It has been seized on by those desperate to cling to and validate their non-deist faith.

Show me the ID'iot creationer ''General Theory of The Gawds Did It''. As you rattle on with your frantic, anti-science Jihad, you refuse to make any defendable case for your gods and why those gods played such a cruel joke on you.

I guess I should Do that if I were insisting on "the Gawds did it." I'm not, so why bother?

 

[abu afak]

Yes, changes cause other changes. If theres a freeze, and 95% of a species population die out the remaining 5% would likely be the ones with more fur, more fat, more traits that resist cold.

Could that be how new species originate? That's a possibility but it is far to great a leap to declare that possibility a fact.

The species population whose less resistant to cold individuals have died out are still the same species. If the cold persists, so will they. As THE SAME SPECIES. If the cold recedes, the species will regress toward the mean. As THE SAME SPECIES.

Darwin presented a somewhat plausible but highly unlikely theory of the origin of species. It has been seized on by those desperate to cling to and validate their non-deist faith.

I guess I should Do that if I were insisting on "the Gawds did it." I'm not, so why bother?

False.
Many species are Extinct. Period.
Like Most Creationists and IDers you believe only in 'microevolution,' not scientific evolution. (or even modern taxonomy)
Like most Creationists you believe in CREATED 'Kinds' (Not 'species') that cannot change without divine intervention.
And even in the case of adaptation, they do become become different species, Families, and genera.
The evidence for Common descent of all life is overwhelming. It's on all our bodies and in our DNA.

`

 

[Seymour Flops]

False.
Many species are Extinct. Period.

Which proves nothing about evolution.

Like Most Creationists and IDers you believe only in 'microevolution,' not scientific evolution. (or even modern taxonomy)

If by "microevolution," you mean changes in population within species, there is evidence for that, so it is credible. Changing from one species to another via natural selection? As soon as you have evidence for that, I want to see it!

Like most Creationists you believe in CREATED 'Kinds' (Not 'species') that cannot change without divine intervention.

No, I call species "species." What is your evidence that I call them "kinds," and where is your quote from me where I discuss "divine intervention?"

And even in the case of adaptation, they do become become different species, Families, and genera.

When have we observed that in modern times? Or when at any time have we directly observed it?

The evidence for Common descent of all life is overwhelming. It's on all our bodies and in our DNA.

`

Just blurting out the word "DNA," doesn't prove anything. If species were brought about by a designer, why would that designer have started from scratch with each new species? Is that what human designers of houses, cars, bridges, factories, clothing, video games, or anything else do?

Do they say, "I don't want to know anything about how current cars work! I just want to start over and build a different kind of car!" No, they never say that. They don't even start designing cars without a graduate level grounding in how existing cars work.

So, if you look at 2022 Ford Mustang Hybrid, you will find some features in common with the 1908 Model T. Because the designers along the way gradually build on that design. That's what designers do. They certainly do not make random changes and hope that one out of a million of those changes will be useful.

Ok, what is the rest of this "overwhelming" evidence of common descent? What is any evidence at all against a designer, when species seem so obviously designed?