info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
New Discoveries Disprove Evolution
17 views
Skip to first unread message
Bob
Dec 29, 2016, 11:59:17 AM12/29/16
to
Davej
Dec 29, 2016, 12:23:49 PM12/29/16
to
On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 10:59:17 AM UTC-6, Bob wrote:
> [...]
I'll wait for the official announcement from the National Academy
of Science. Oops looks like you're still in fantasyland.
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
> [...]
I'll wait for the official announcement from the National Academy
of Science. Oops looks like you're still in fantasyland.
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
Cloud Hobbit
Dec 29, 2016, 6:48:19 PM12/29/16
to
Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."
© PhotoDisc In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.
Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.
One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.
In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.
John Locke
Jan 1, 2017, 1:41:12 PM1/1/17
to
science, confirmed and supported across multiple scientific
disciplines, we can now concentrate on practical applications
including developmental biology, artificial selection, medicine,
evolutionary computation and fossil predictions.
Cloud Hobbit
Jan 3, 2017, 4:38:09 PM1/3/17
to
On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 8:59:17 AM UTC-8, Bob wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcLlVg06fFQ
So where is the peer reviewed paper that proves this obvious lie?
That video was put up in 2011, they have been doing a very bad job of gettng the news of this lie to the public.
Seems to me any proof of evolution being disproved, would make more news than we have seen for this so called discovery. When a claim is made against the cornerstone of biology and with influence on many othr scientific disciplines, it would have to very new and very well researched and with very sound reasoning.
Of course it isn't. It isn't even a blip on the scientific radar. the reason nobody heard about it before now is becauselike all of mr. Duncan's posts this one is a link to another bunch of lies and bullshit.
I love this, the first comment on this video you lnked to makes far moe sense than anything in the video.
Gregor Perčič4 months ago (edited)
Okay, I'm furious. Time for a quick debunk (man, if something gets me pissed, it's the misusage of exeternal knowledge).
1. There are plenty, and I mean PLENTY fossil records of transiston from one species to another. This claim became so ridiculous, that there is actually a web page dedicated to debunking all the nonesense creationists throw at the face of science. Here you go - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html, http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03. I actually know what is your problem. You want science to be like god. You want all the evidence RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW, no matter how fundamental the questions with whom science is working are (you want a scientific explanation for the origin of life and universe; but guess what - these questions are so hard that science might need thousands of years to fully explain them; because you are too lazy to research, you find haven in the form of religion, which has "all the reight answers"; pathetic!) way to hard to solve in a blink of an eye. However, we don't actually NEED transition forms to show that evolution is true. Now we have DNA analysis, which can definivetly prove that certain pairs of creatures share significantly more identical DNA, therefore, they are more closely related. I might introduce you to LUCA, Last Universal Common Ancestor, the first known living being, of whom set of 355 fully determined genes (as of 2016 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor) all known life forms share. Back in the Darwin's days, it was easy to doubt ANYTHING that had ANY inconveniences (therefore this is a justification for Darwin's doubts), but with modern DNA analysis and research, we can support the theory of evolution as solidly as the theory of gravity.
2. We, humans, are animals, whether you like it or not. And surprise surprise, our ancestor WAS NOT Neanderthal, rather we share a common ancestor, so your point here is basically vain. Also, you talk about all the horrible fakes humans presented as evidence. I agree, this is morally and scientifically wrong, but the joke is on you, as you completely ignored all the authentic evidence that has managed to support evolution in the transition of species (in this case to human - Homo Sapiens Sapiens). Let me present you with some of them (starting from the least evolved): Saselatrophus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenesis, Ardipicheus kadabba, Ardipicheus ramidus, Australopitchecus anamensis, Australopitchesus afarensis, Kenyathropus platypos, Paranthropus oetiophicus, Australopithecus garhi, Paranthropus boisei, Australopithecus africanus, Paranthropus robustus, Australopithecus sediba, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo erectus, Homo antecessor, Homo naledi, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo floresiensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens, Homo sapiens sapiens. So, you see, the evidence COULDN'T BE more accurate than it already is. Homo erectus WAS an ape-man, as the study of its genome shows close relation (99% match) with Homo sapiens, Homo australopithicus and Homo habilis. Taxonomy can't save you here. Genes don't lie. The cherry-picking argument is just silly, as the one criticizing it clearly doesn't have a clue of how genomes are are profoundly compared. The genome consists of 1.5% that governs the taxonomic specialties, 3.5% are responsible for the functionality of cell mytochondria, 40% are virus/bacteria inserted genome (as the result of virus/bacteria to cell symbiosis) and the remainig 55% are just structural DNA (which give shape and wanted lenght of double helix) and pseudo-genes, chaotic genetic trash, the product of blind evolution. Scientists only compare 5% of functional DNA, because THIS IS THE ONLY PORTION THAT RESEMBLES THE ORGANISM THEY ARE RESEARCHING. You can find more debunk here - http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/chimp-and-human-dna/.
3. The next point of yours is rather pathetic. You try to bend everything in sight to ONE BOOK, even science. Disgusting! No, sir, Earth is not 9000 or 6000 years old, but your ideology might be roughly of that age. As I specialise in evolutionary science I don't know much about dating with the help of radioactive decay, but I did my research nonetheless. Luckily I found this page which accuratley explais the fallcay of ICR. Give it a look - https://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating. But take something into consideration. Earth can never be 9000 years old, as there have been cultural monuments found that are at least 10000 years old - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_civilization. Here are the reftutals of all other ludicrous claims you make - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics are refuted here - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Catastrophic_plate_tectonics. I'm sorry I haven't been exhaustive on this point, but I'm not well informed on the matter of geology.
4. Adolf Hitler DID use evolution for his massacre, HOWEVER, look at what he wrote in his Mein Kampf:
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Neat, huh? And also, take a look at this speech:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
I have a strange feeling evolution isn't the only thing that is being used for mass destruction? Is it just me?
5. You argue that evolution made a huge negative impact on the world. I'm sorry, but that is basically impossible. That's like blaming hydrogen atoms for the atomic bomb ("Just because they can be split to produce a massive explsion, they are guilty!"; this is what your logic sounds like). Knowledge is out there, but it is forever neutral and can be used to do good or destroy everything. Same goes for evolution. Don't blame it, blame the people who exploited it in their own advantage. But you could argue that similar things happen with religion. You couldn't be more wrong. While the core (the beginning) of religion might be in good spirit (a.k.a. with good intention), religion is an ideology which can be shifted to manipulate masses. And so, the primeval meaning is gone, while the facts of science still remain. But if we look at the roots of your faith (christianity), violence is already not permitted, but DEMANDED from god (in Tanakh as well as in the new testament). This is my central proof why the religion as a whole is more prone to being manipulative and destructive than science. In science, you have data, from which you must draw a conclusion. In religion, you have a conclusion, for which you desperatley try to find data. You've failed in doing so.
BONUS: I noticed that almost all scientists you quoted are drom ICR or CMI or any other creationism network. They use their knowledge to support their shallow, dumbed down, bronze age beliefs, which is regressive by all means. In my opinion, people who exploit their knowledge to deceive and confuse others, are a disgrace to the human kind.
__________________________________________________
Robert "Bob" Duncan or whatever the fuck his real name is, is a certified liar and appaently either a fundamentalist idiot troll or a just a troll. No wy to prove either.
What can be proven is that every one of his Youtube links is to somethng untrue, unscientific, and just flat out wrong.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcLlVg06fFQ
So where is the peer reviewed paper that proves this obvious lie?
That video was put up in 2011, they have been doing a very bad job of gettng the news of this lie to the public.
Seems to me any proof of evolution being disproved, would make more news than we have seen for this so called discovery. When a claim is made against the cornerstone of biology and with influence on many othr scientific disciplines, it would have to very new and very well researched and with very sound reasoning.
Of course it isn't. It isn't even a blip on the scientific radar. the reason nobody heard about it before now is becauselike all of mr. Duncan's posts this one is a link to another bunch of lies and bullshit.
I love this, the first comment on this video you lnked to makes far moe sense than anything in the video.
Gregor Perčič4 months ago (edited)
Okay, I'm furious. Time for a quick debunk (man, if something gets me pissed, it's the misusage of exeternal knowledge).
1. There are plenty, and I mean PLENTY fossil records of transiston from one species to another. This claim became so ridiculous, that there is actually a web page dedicated to debunking all the nonesense creationists throw at the face of science. Here you go - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html, http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03. I actually know what is your problem. You want science to be like god. You want all the evidence RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW, no matter how fundamental the questions with whom science is working are (you want a scientific explanation for the origin of life and universe; but guess what - these questions are so hard that science might need thousands of years to fully explain them; because you are too lazy to research, you find haven in the form of religion, which has "all the reight answers"; pathetic!) way to hard to solve in a blink of an eye. However, we don't actually NEED transition forms to show that evolution is true. Now we have DNA analysis, which can definivetly prove that certain pairs of creatures share significantly more identical DNA, therefore, they are more closely related. I might introduce you to LUCA, Last Universal Common Ancestor, the first known living being, of whom set of 355 fully determined genes (as of 2016 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor) all known life forms share. Back in the Darwin's days, it was easy to doubt ANYTHING that had ANY inconveniences (therefore this is a justification for Darwin's doubts), but with modern DNA analysis and research, we can support the theory of evolution as solidly as the theory of gravity.
2. We, humans, are animals, whether you like it or not. And surprise surprise, our ancestor WAS NOT Neanderthal, rather we share a common ancestor, so your point here is basically vain. Also, you talk about all the horrible fakes humans presented as evidence. I agree, this is morally and scientifically wrong, but the joke is on you, as you completely ignored all the authentic evidence that has managed to support evolution in the transition of species (in this case to human - Homo Sapiens Sapiens). Let me present you with some of them (starting from the least evolved): Saselatrophus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenesis, Ardipicheus kadabba, Ardipicheus ramidus, Australopitchecus anamensis, Australopitchesus afarensis, Kenyathropus platypos, Paranthropus oetiophicus, Australopithecus garhi, Paranthropus boisei, Australopithecus africanus, Paranthropus robustus, Australopithecus sediba, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo erectus, Homo antecessor, Homo naledi, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo floresiensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens, Homo sapiens sapiens. So, you see, the evidence COULDN'T BE more accurate than it already is. Homo erectus WAS an ape-man, as the study of its genome shows close relation (99% match) with Homo sapiens, Homo australopithicus and Homo habilis. Taxonomy can't save you here. Genes don't lie. The cherry-picking argument is just silly, as the one criticizing it clearly doesn't have a clue of how genomes are are profoundly compared. The genome consists of 1.5% that governs the taxonomic specialties, 3.5% are responsible for the functionality of cell mytochondria, 40% are virus/bacteria inserted genome (as the result of virus/bacteria to cell symbiosis) and the remainig 55% are just structural DNA (which give shape and wanted lenght of double helix) and pseudo-genes, chaotic genetic trash, the product of blind evolution. Scientists only compare 5% of functional DNA, because THIS IS THE ONLY PORTION THAT RESEMBLES THE ORGANISM THEY ARE RESEARCHING. You can find more debunk here - http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/chimp-and-human-dna/.
3. The next point of yours is rather pathetic. You try to bend everything in sight to ONE BOOK, even science. Disgusting! No, sir, Earth is not 9000 or 6000 years old, but your ideology might be roughly of that age. As I specialise in evolutionary science I don't know much about dating with the help of radioactive decay, but I did my research nonetheless. Luckily I found this page which accuratley explais the fallcay of ICR. Give it a look - https://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating. But take something into consideration. Earth can never be 9000 years old, as there have been cultural monuments found that are at least 10000 years old - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_civilization. Here are the reftutals of all other ludicrous claims you make - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics are refuted here - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Catastrophic_plate_tectonics. I'm sorry I haven't been exhaustive on this point, but I'm not well informed on the matter of geology.
4. Adolf Hitler DID use evolution for his massacre, HOWEVER, look at what he wrote in his Mein Kampf:
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Neat, huh? And also, take a look at this speech:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
I have a strange feeling evolution isn't the only thing that is being used for mass destruction? Is it just me?
5. You argue that evolution made a huge negative impact on the world. I'm sorry, but that is basically impossible. That's like blaming hydrogen atoms for the atomic bomb ("Just because they can be split to produce a massive explsion, they are guilty!"; this is what your logic sounds like). Knowledge is out there, but it is forever neutral and can be used to do good or destroy everything. Same goes for evolution. Don't blame it, blame the people who exploited it in their own advantage. But you could argue that similar things happen with religion. You couldn't be more wrong. While the core (the beginning) of religion might be in good spirit (a.k.a. with good intention), religion is an ideology which can be shifted to manipulate masses. And so, the primeval meaning is gone, while the facts of science still remain. But if we look at the roots of your faith (christianity), violence is already not permitted, but DEMANDED from god (in Tanakh as well as in the new testament). This is my central proof why the religion as a whole is more prone to being manipulative and destructive than science. In science, you have data, from which you must draw a conclusion. In religion, you have a conclusion, for which you desperatley try to find data. You've failed in doing so.
BONUS: I noticed that almost all scientists you quoted are drom ICR or CMI or any other creationism network. They use their knowledge to support their shallow, dumbed down, bronze age beliefs, which is regressive by all means. In my opinion, people who exploit their knowledge to deceive and confuse others, are a disgrace to the human kind.
__________________________________________________
Robert "Bob" Duncan or whatever the fuck his real name is, is a certified liar and appaently either a fundamentalist idiot troll or a just a troll. No wy to prove either.
What can be proven is that every one of his Youtube links is to somethng untrue, unscientific, and just flat out wrong.
0 new messages