New flat-faced human species possibly discovered

[Shadow]

New fossils from the dawn of the human lineage suggest our ancestors may have lived alongside a diversity of extinct human species, researchers say. Although modern humans, Homo sapiens, are the only human species alive today, the world has seen a number of human species come and go. Other members perhaps include the recently discovered "hobbit" Homo floresiensis (http://www.livescience.com/1282-hobbit-declared-species-debate-continues.html).

The human lineage, Homo, evolved in Africa about 2.5 million years ago, coinciding with the first evidence of stone tools. For the first half of the last century, conventional wisdom was that the most primitive member of our lineage was Homo erectus (http://www.livescience.com/7968-human-evolution-origin-tool.html), the direct ancestor of our species. However, just over 50 years ago, scientists discovered an even more primitive species of Homo at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania they dubbed Homo habilis, which had a smaller brain and a more apelike skeleton.


Now fossils between 1.78 million and 1.95 million years old discovered in 2007 and 2009 in northern Kenya suggest that early Homo were quite a diverse bunch, with at least one other extinct human species (http://www.livescience.com/15911-humans-interbred-extinct-relatives.html)living at the same time as H. erectus and H. habilis.
"Two species of the genus Homo, our own genus, lived alongside our direct ancestor, Homo erectus, nearly 2 million years ago," researcher Meave Leakey at the Turkana Basin Institute in Nairobi, Kenya, told LiveScience.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48573025

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Now fossils between 1.78 million and 1.95 million years old discovered in 2007 and 2009 in northern Kenya suggest that early Homo were quite a diverse bunch, with at least one other extinct human species (http://www.livescience.com/15911-humans-interbred-extinct-relatives.html)living at the same time as H. erectus and H. habilis.
"Two species of the genus Homo, our own genus, lived alongside our direct ancestor, Homo erectus, nearly 2 million years ago," researcher Meave Leakey at the Turkana Basin Institute in Nairobi, Kenya, told LiveScience.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48573025

Kenya, is this going to be proof that obama's family goes way,way back!??-;)-Tyr

[taft2012]

New fossils from the dawn of the human lineage suggest our ancestors may have lived alongside a diversity of extinct human species, researchers say. Although modern humans, Homo sapiens, are the only human species alive today, the world has seen a number of human species come and go.

This always confuses me. They say Neanderthal was a different species than Homo sapien, but that they did interbreed and have offspring together.

So is that truly different species, or a different genus? Or are they discussing what we would call different "races" today, and being quite offensive by calling them different species?

Was it like a horse and a donkey mating and making a sterile mule?

What is science's basis for declaring a fossil a:
a. human species
b. human genus
c. human of a specific race

[Shadow]

This always confuses me. They say Neanderthal was a different species than Homo sapien, but that they did interbreed and have offspring together.

So is that truly different species, or a different genus? Or are they discussing what we would call different "races" today, and being quite offensive by calling them different species?

Was it like a horse and a donkey mating and making a sterile mule?

What is science's basis for declaring a fossil a:
a. human species
b. human genus
c. human of a specific race

And if all of these "species' of humans lived along side each other...why did the rest die off. I also noted that they claimed to have discovered yet another species earlier..... "hobbit" Homo floresiensis (http://www.livescience.com/1282-hobbit-declared-species-debate-continues.html). Interesting that it is also claimed that the species that was vegitarian with the bigger brain became extinct too.

Guess the theory that man evolved in a linear line defeats their purpose now. Apparently they have a new agenda.

[Shadow]

Kenya, is this going to be proof that obama's family goes way,way back!??-;)-Tyr

Well of course. Somehow DNA will prove that Barack Obama was a direct ancestor to all three species of man...and is infact,the 'missing link' that brings them all together... so must be re elected. :coffee:

[fj1200]

Apparently they have a new agenda.

What was the old agenda?

[revelarts]

old post along these lines
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?28048-Richard-Dawkins-stumped-by-creationists-question-(RAW-FTGE)&p=429494#post429494

[red state]

I agree...Evilution is a theory (at best) and not a very good one (at worse). I am not kin to a monkey...but I will not HATE those who are.

[red state]

http://vimeopro.com/icr/thats-a-fact
The above link contains VERY interesting reading. I met Dr. Morris a few years before his death... a remarkable man (within all fields). Whether you believe in evolution or creationism, your intelligence will surely spark interest.

[Trigg]

I agree...Evilution is a theory (at best) and not a very good one (at worse). I am not kin to a monkey...but I will not HATE those who are.


I'm not willing to swallow the whole monkey to man evolution. But evolution does definitally exist. Through interbreeding and isolation species change over time.

[Missileman]

I'm not willing to swallow the whole monkey to man evolution.

Man didn't evolve from monkeys...but man and monkeys share a common ancestor.

[Shadow]

I agree...Evilution is a theory (at best) and not a very good one (at worse). I am not kin to a monkey...but I will not HATE those who are.

I remember that song....


I'm no kin to the monkey (no no no)
The monkey ain't no kin to me ( e e e )
I don't know much about your ancestors
but mine didn't swing from a tree.



Straight from revival week at church when I was a kid :)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well of course. Somehow DNA will prove that Barack Obama was a direct ancestor to all three species of man...and is infact,the 'missing link' that brings them all together... so must be re elected. :coffee:

Of course, Rome get tha hell out of the way. All roads lead to the magnificent divinity of Obama! :laugh2:-Tyr

[red state]

Trigg wrote: "I'm not willing to swallow the...


Man didn't evolve from monkeys...but man and monkeys share a common ancestor.

I'm not willing to swallow ANY of the lies...especially when it is closed minded lies and not true science which is open to ALL theories to reach a conclusion or our origins. Big Bang...how about before then? Is this all wrong? It intelligence the source from which the Big Bang came to be OR is God the creator as He explained within Genesis?

You know, I'm sick and tired of this THEORY of evolution being forced upon us when it has never been proven and is so hostile to other possibilites. That is not true science. When did the theory of Evolution become a proven Science? I know they're trying to call Evolution an idea that is neither theory or fact but most, like yourself, simply go even further than that and say (I'm right...you're wrong) without backing it up. Show me evidence...I'm sure I can counter anything you bring up.

That's your opinion and the theory of many scientist but my opinion and the theory of many bright individuals, professors and scientist all over the world who have increased in numbers as the evidence of evolution unravels. Now I know you didn't view any of my other info and stuff or you'd have tried to pick it apart but I know that for some, difference of opinion is not your strong suit and to a degree, it is not mine either but I at was, at least, one of those who considered evolution to be "the gospel truth" until I was opened up to real truth. Many of the scientist that have found evidence that intelligent design (not evolution) have jumped ship and are now facing discrimination and worse by the "tolerant" among us. I've looked at both sides and have been a part of both sides and those who can't intellectually say: "Hey....wait a minute....they may actually have something there." are what I call true scientists and true intellectuals. Instead, we have a NAZI-like force who will stop at nothing to silence or discredit others who simply wish to explore TRUE Science.

Take the "So-called" which was supposed to be a transitional form or a "missing link", if you will, because the Tiktaalik, like so many fish of today taht look simular to other animals (or more specifically reptiles)...was still, ONLY A FISH. I don't want to get into the "missing links of man" because those hoaxes were much like the corrupt hoax of Climate Change or climate change due to mankind. But getting back on the Tiktaalik is an extinct species of sarcopterygian fish, discovered on Ellesmere Island on April 6, 2006. According to seemingly reliable evolutionary dating methods, the Tiktaalik lived during the Late Devonian period, allegedly 375 million years ago. This creature is claimed to be the missing link between tetrapods and fish, called "fishapod" by Neil Shubin (one of those who discovered the fossil).

Now, bear in mind that as long as Evolution is around, there will be claims of "irrefutable evidence" and "proof" for Evolution. When examined fully, however, the "proofs" do not hold water, so to speak. According to FishBase's February 2011 update, there are currently approximately 32,000 known species of fish - both living and fossilized, and more are discovered - not evolved - about 200-300, per year. Some experts believe there was once nearly one million species of fish on the planet.

The fact that thousands of species of fish have been lost or not yet discovered adds nothing to Evolution, it merely shows that extinction is a very real thing.

I can't finish this...gotta soft ball tournament but I'll try to pick it back up at lunch Monday or Monday night.

[Missileman]

I'm not willing to swallow ANY of the lies...especially when it is closed minded lies and not true science which is open to ALL theories to reach a conclusion or our origins.

ROFL...true science....LMFAO. You have no clue what science is or how it works, just admit it now and save yourself any more embarrasment. Seriously.

[revelarts]

ROFL...true science....LMFAO. You have no clue what science is or how it works, just admit it now and save yourself any more embarrasment. Seriously.

DejaVu...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?33505-Macro-Evolutionists&highlight=Evolution



"The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools... Clearly, some people refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated. If only they had the evidence..."
Fix, William R. in The Bone Peddlers. Macmillan, New York, NY (1984), p.150.


"Botanists construct as best they can an imaginary picture of the missing links, so as to complete the sequence of steps in the evolution of the plant kingdom . Obviously such a practice is mainly guesswork, but, like many such hypotheses, has been very useful in organizing subject matter and stimulating research...the record of the rocks reveals practically nothing of the earlier chapters in the evolution of the plant kingdom. For these, therefore, we must rely upon the types of plants still in existence, plus a liberal measure of scientific imagination."
Coulter M. C. in The Nature of the World and of Man. H. H. Newman, Garden City, NY (0), p.216.



"The models we consider are of three sorts: those that extrapolate processes of speciation to account for higher taxa via divergence, those that invoke selection among species, and those that emphasize that many higher taxa originated as novel lineages in their own right, not only as a consequence of species-level processes. It is in this latter class of model that we believe the record favors." "... many of the large populations should have been preserved, yet we simply do not find them. Small populations are called for, then, but there are difficulties here also. The populations must remain small (and undetected) and evolve steadily and consistently toward the body plan that comprises the basis of a new phylum (or class). This is asking a lot. Deleterious mutations would tend to accumulate in small populations to form genetic loads that selection might not be able to handle. Stable intermediate adaptive modes cannot be invoked as a regular feature, since we are then again faced with the problem of just where their remains are. We might imagine vast arrays of such small populations fanning continually and incessantly into adaptive space. Vast arrays should have produced at least some fossil remains also. Perhaps an even greater difficulty is the requirement that these arrays of lineages change along a rather straight and true course --- morphological side trips or detours of any frequency should lengthen the time of origin of higher taxa beyond what appears to be available. Why should an opportunistic, tinkering process set on such a course and hold it for so long successfully among so many lineages?"
Valentine, J., and Erwin, D. in "Interpreting Great Developmental Experiments: The Fossil Record" in Development as an Evolutionary Process, Raff, Rudolf A. and Elizabeth C. Raff, ed. Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York, NY (1985), p.71.


"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
Gould, Stephen Jay i,l. (1982), p.140.

"Since we hardly know anything about the major types of organization, suggestions, and suggestions only, can be made. How can one confidently assert that one mechanism rather than another was at the origin of the creation of the plans of organization, if one relies entirely upon imagination to find a solution? Our ignorance is so great that we dare not even assign with any accuracy an ancestral stock to the phyla Protozoa, Arthropoda, Mollusca, and Vertebrata. The lack of concrete evidence relative to the "heyday" of evolution seriously impairs any transformist theory. In any case, a shadow is cast over the genesis of the fundamental structural plans and we are unable to eliminate it."
Grasse, Pierre in "Chapter I: From the Simple to the Complex--Progressive Evolution, Regressive Evolution" in Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation. Academic Press, New York, NY (1977), 2nd edition, p.17.


"Another beauty - and an important weakness - of the theory of evolution by natural selection is that with a little imagination it is possible to come up with an explanation of anything. Evolutionary biologists like to spend their time making up stories about how selection has moulded the most unlikely characteristics. Sometimes they even turn out to be right."
Jones, Steve in The Language of the Genes: Biology, History and the Evolutionary Future. Flamingo, London, (1994), p.196.


""This is true of all thirty-two orders of mammals...The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed... This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate...it is also true of the classes, themselves, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.""
Simpson, George Gaylord in "Chapter III: Micro-Evolution, Macro-Evolution, and Mega-Evolution" in Tempo and Mode in Evolution, L. C. Dunn, ed. Hafner Publishing Company, Inc., New York and London, NY (1965), Reprint, p.106,107.

"At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position."
Rensberger, Boyce in How the World Works. William Morrow & Co., New York, NY (1986), p.1718.

"Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination."
Takahata. 1995. A genetic perspective on the origin and history of humans in Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. …


"Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture. The guesswork approach often leads to errors"
Rensberger, Boyce. 1981, in Science…

"It is, however, when we come to consider the actual course or lineage in the subsequent diversification of organisms...that we meet with disappointment and frustration if we rigorously distinguish between evidence and speculation...At this time there are no known living or fossil forms which unequivocally link any two of the proposed divisions."
Bold, Harold C. in Morphology of Plants. Harper & Row, (1967), p.515.

"Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers. Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales found on such forms as Longisquama ... as being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence that they in fact are. They are very interesting, highly modified and elongated reptilian scales, and are not incipient feathers."
Feducia, Alan in "On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers" in The Beginning of Birds. Jura Museum, Eichstatt, West Germany (1985), p.76.


One of my biggest issues with Darwinism is fundamentally it has a racist core which i think is it's most socially potent and insidious aspect, many Jewish and other historians acknowledge that Darwinism was a seed bed for the holocaust. And that Darwin promoted many racist Ideas. He was related to and corresponded with many of the people connected to the eugenics movement and to Malthus who voice bogus concerns of overpopulation.
Darwin not only had a racially biased view of the non-Aryan races, he even held other Europeans who were not of English descent with contempt. Here is his opinion of the Irish, taken from his Descent of Man:
"A most important obstacle in civilised countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class has been strongly insisted on by Mr. Greg and Mr. Galton, namely, the fact that the very poor and reckless, who are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late in life, so that they may be able to support themselves and their children in comfort. . .Those who marry early produce within a given period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shewn by Dr. Duncan they produce many more children. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: 'The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits..."(Descent, Chapter Five: On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties During Primeval and Civilised Times: Natural selection as affecting civilised nations.)
Darwin quoted Greg here in referring to his Irish neighbors as degraded members of society.
He also wrote that the western nations of Europe owed none of their "superiority" to Greek ancestry: "The western nations of Europe, who now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors, and stand at the summit of civilisation, owe little or none of their superiority to direct inheritance from the old Greeks", to whom he referred in a quote from Greg as "'corrupt to the very core.'" (Descent, ibid.)
Darwin shared with us his evolutionary viewpoint on what happens to more primitive cultures when encountering more "advanced" (i.e. European) cultures in Chapter Seven of the Descent, On the Races of Man: On the Extinction of the Races of Man: "The partial or complete extinction of many races of man is historically known . . . Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race . . .the contest is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism, slavery, and absorption . . .When civilized nations come into contact with barbarians the struggle is short, except where a deadly climate gives its aid to the native race."
Darwin also stated that the wealthy nations would eventually replace the less privileged races in the struggle for life, and it is apparent that he believed this to be a good thing:
"But the inheritance of property by itself is very far from an evil; for without the accumulation of capital the arts could not progress; and it is chiefly through their power that the civilised races have extended, and are now everywhere extending their range, so as to take the place of the lower races."(Ibid)




"I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political."
Huxley, Aldous in Ends and Means. (0), p.270.


"What theistic evolutionists have failed above all to comprehend is that the conflict is not over "facts" but over ways of thinking. The problem is not just with any specific doctrine of Darwinian science, but with the naturalistic rules of thought that Darwinian scientists employ to derive those doctrines. If scientists had actually observed natural selection creating new organs, or had seen a step-by-step process of fundamental change consistently recorded in the fossil record, such observations could readily be interpreted as evidence of God's use of secondary causes to create. But Darwinian scientists have not observed anything like that. What they have done is to assume as a matter of first principle that purposeless material processes can do all the work of biological creation because, according to their philosophy, nothing else was available. They have defined their task as finding the most plausible-or least implausible- description of how biological creation could occur in the absence of a creator. The specific answers they derive may or may not be reconcilable with theism, but the manner of thinking is profoundly atheistic. To accept the answers as indubitably true is inevitably to accept the thinking that generated those answers. That is why I think the appropriate term for the accommodationist position is not "theistic evolution," but rather theistic naturalism. Under either name, it is a disastrous error."
Johnson, P.E. October 24, 1994. Shouting `Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin in Christianity Today, 38(12).

[revelarts]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/k5r5cRlctLM?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[aboutime]

Kenya, is this going to be proof that obama's family goes way,way back!??-;)-Tyr


Were any of those fossils possibly holding any items that looked like a Birth Certificate, etched in stone near the Kenya border where another fossil, that looked like an I-POD, and very old Cell-phone were found next to the AL GORE book about Global Warming?

Inquiring Minds would like to know.

[red state]

Were any of those fossils possibly holding any items that looked like a Birth Certificate, etched in stone near the Kenya border where another fossil, that looked like an I-POD, and very old Cell-phone were found next to the AL GORE book about Global Warming?

Inquiring Minds would like to know.

Aboutime,

Closed, simple minded lemmings who do what they are told an not question what they are told do not.

Science is about QUESTIONING and trying to understand. Just as those who believe in the THEORY of evolution are usually bigoted (following after their bigoted leader Mr. Darwin) the are closed minded and bigoted to the possibilities. I once believed in evolution but after considering ALL the possibilities and seeing the vast holes in evolution, I began to see the evidence that the great flood was responsible for the fossiles (both land and sea creatures) that are so often times found within a congested area.

This evidence that disputes evolution is increasing and so is the number of scientists who see things for what they are instead of for what someone tells them that they are.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Aboutime,

Closed, simple minded lemmings who do what they are told an not question what they are told do not.

Science is about QUESTIONING and trying to understand. Just as those who believe in the THEORY of evolution are usually bigoted (following after their bigoted leader Mr. Darwin) the are closed minded and bigoted to the possibilities. I once believed in evolution but after considering ALL the possibilities and seeing the vast holes in evolution, I began to see the evidence that the great flood was responsible for the fossiles (both land and sea creatures) that are so often times found within a congested area.

This evidence that disputes evolution is increasing and so is the number of scientists who see things for what they are instead of for what someone tells them that they are.

Darwinism requires as much "faith" as does Christianity IMHO. Sure has only proved itself to those already willing to accept it. I find the missing links to be evidence of imagination in creating the timeline and the scientific fable.-Tyr

[Missileman]

Aboutime,

Closed, simple minded lemmings who do what they are told an not question what they are told do not.

Science is about QUESTIONING and trying to understand. Just as those who believe in the THEORY of evolution are usually bigoted (following after their bigoted leader Mr. Darwin) the are closed minded and bigoted to the possibilities. I once believed in evolution but after considering ALL the possibilities and seeing the vast holes in evolution, I began to see the evidence that the great flood was responsible for the fossiles (both land and sea creatures) that are so often times found within a congested area.

This evidence that disputes evolution is increasing and so is the number of scientists who see things for what they are instead of for what someone tells them that they are.

Hey genius! If there were a single shred of evidence that disproved evolution, scientists would abandon the theory...that's how science works. Science isn't about giving equal consideration to all theories but going to where observations and evidence lead. As I said in an earlier post, you have no clue what science is or how it works.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/08/evolution_as_both_theory_and_f049111.html

Evolution as "Both Theory and Fact"? A Philosopher Blows Away the Often-Heard Darwinian Claim
Casey Luskin August 5, 2011 12:30 PM | Permalink


When attacking opponents, Darwin lobbyists typically define "theory" as "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, and tested hypotheses" (National Academy of Sciences, 1999) or "a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence" (National Academy of Sciences, 2008). Using such definitions, saying the "theory of evolution" now necessarily implies an idea that is "well-substantiated" and "supported by a vast body of evidence." Darwin lobbyists then scold those who say that "evolution is just a theory" as misunderstanding the definition of the term "theory" and also mock them for unwittingly implying that evolution is well-supported. But is that what "theory" really means?

Kosso observes that in practice, the term "theory" says little about the degree of certainty that characterizes an idea. As he notes "neither 'theoretical' nor 'law' is about being true or false, or about being well-tested or speculative."

How does Kosso define theory? He writes that "all theories describe objects or events that are not directly observable. This is the core concept of theory. A theory describes aspects of nature that are beyond (or beneath) what we can observe, aspects that can be used to explain what we observe." He continues:

Germs, atoms, caloric, curved spacetime, and elemental strings are all, to one degree or another, unobservable. That's what makes them theoretical. But that doesn't make them unreal.Kosso goes on to explain that saying something is a "theory" doesn't necessarily imply it is a "fact," or even that it is well-supported by the evidence:
A theory is true if it describes unobservable things that really exist and describes them accurately. Otherwise it is false. This shows the mistake in contrasting "theory" and "fact." A fact is an actual state of affairs in nature, and a theory, or any statement for that matter, is true if it matches fact. Some theories are true (atomic theory), some are false (caloric theory), and the scientific method is what directs us in deciding which are which.Thus, Kosso has blown the cover on the Darwin lobby's attempt to redefine theory to necessarily imply a concept which has strong evidential backing and is "well-tested" or "supported by a vast body of evidence."

Kosso continues, stating: "To say of some idea, That's a theory not a fact, is a confusion of categories, a comparison of apples and oranges." While I agree with Kosso on this, it would stand to reason that it is also a confusion of categories to say "That's a theory and a fact." Thus, Kosso's argument also could cut against Darwin proponents who say "Evolution is both theory and fact."

Amending My Recommendations For Expressing Skepticism of Neo-Darwinian Evolution

A few years ago, I wrote a series where I explained why using the line that "evolution is a theory, but not a fact" is an ineffective way of expressing skepticism of neo-Darwinism. As I wrote:

I've long opposed using such a rhetorical line of "evolution is just a theory, not a fact" to oppose evolution because it gets you caught up in a semantic debate over the proper definition of fact and theory, and communicates very little about the most important component of this debate -- the scientific evidence. ... What follows is a slightly longer description of what one might say to communicate doubts about neo-Darwinism while avoiding semantic mistakes and communicating more than mere soundbyte arguments:

When evolution is defined as mere change over time within species, no one disputes that such evolution is a fact. But neo-Darwinian evolution -- the great claim that unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations is the driving force that produced the complexity of life -- has many scientific problems because such random and unguided processes do not build new complex biological features. According to the technical definitions of "theory," "fact," and "hypothesis," such neo-Darwinian evolution is neither theory nor fact. It's just a hypothesis."

(Is "Evolution" a "Theory" or "Fact" or Is This Just a Trivial Game of Semantics?)
Today, I continue to very much stand by the position that the "evolution is a theory, not a fact" or "evolution is just a theory" lines are poor and ineffective means of expressing skepticism of neo-Darwinism. However, in light of Kosso's definitions of "theory," driven by no discernible agenda, I would like to amend myself.

What follows is an amended description of what one might say to communicate doubts about neo-Darwinism while avoiding semantic mistakes and communicating more than mere sound-byte arguments:

When evolution is defined as mere change over time within species, no one disputes that such evolution is a fact. But neo-Darwinian evolution -- the great claim that unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations is the driving force that produced the complexity of life -- has many scientific problems because such random and unguided processes do not build new complex biological features. Neo-Darwinian evolution is a theory that has been falsified by the evidence.And that's a fact
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^^^^^^^^ Interesting and enlightening too.-Tyr

[PostmodernProphet]

Hey genius! If there were a single shred of evidence that disproved evolution, scientists would abandon the theory...that's how science works. Science isn't about giving equal consideration to all theories but going to where observations and evidence lead. As I said in an earlier post, you have no clue what science is or how it works.

Miss.....if I join in this conversation would you respond this time?.......you haven't replied to one of my posts since I destroyed you in a debate like this two years ago.....

[red state]

Thanks for the video, Revelarts,

Thanks, Tyr, but Evolution (as 'dictated' by many these days, is BOTH theory and fact! You gotta love the left and it sounds exactly like the WARMERS....does it not? They they are so intolerant and it boggles their mind to see and hear great minds debunk the so-called "proof" in either.

FACT: There are NO known fossils chimp fossels and they only have similar genetics. Then again, we have amazing similarities in various ways to swine. It is believed that there are no proto-chimpanzee fossils or proto-gorilla fossils...unless many of the fossils that are [alleged] to be early "man" or "ape men" or "cave men" are, IN FACT, simply gorilla and chimps or extinct varieties of apes and chimps. All primates have 48 chromosomes while we have 46.....Ummmmm, someone should get Miss to explain that one. Heck, we aren't even in the same class as we are bipeds. Surely a "missing link" among chimps would be walking around today (upright that is). And where did Miss go anyway? Post Modern Prophet...you wasn't too mean the last time in bringing up all the HOLES within evolution that Miss and those like him follow blindly and with their extreme biased towards others were you?

I doubt very seriously that any of the lemmings will or have given any regards or consideration to your writing, links or intelligent quest for TRUTH and possibilities. I provided a fantastic video to bacteria by Dr. Morris and your video was certainly as enlightening and touched base on the same topics of concern when trying to understand the origins of life and of species. There is no evidence of evolution but there is evidence that our universe is dying and species are going extinct...not evolving to survive for the drastic change in climate and other factors are (to be fair...USUALLY) too great and too sudden for a species to have time to "evolve". As Dr. Berlinski so adequately put it, [a dog has always been a dog]. I dare say that if a sea-like creature EVENTUALLY became a cow-like creature (or vise versa), there should be a species that survived during the Transforming/"missing link" period of that creature just as we still have apes and we still have man...yet we do not have (and never have had an Ape-man (other than Tarzan of course). Seriously though, how hard is this to understand and see the HUGE hole in evolution. There are animals that share appearance with one another BUT that is all they usually share so they can never or should never be considered as proof of evolution. Science doesn't work that way...at least it shouldn't. Why would the "in-between" transitions disappear and the beginning and end results are still thriving? Hhmmmm...true science would and should ask this question. Funny thing is, those who are usually find themselves ousted through Nazi-like actions of discrediting, firing and black listing those who oppose them.

I can understand how we could try and breed or force a certain environment on a pig to where it will one day fly but even with our best efforts, I don't see it happening. Maybe with hi-tech genetically ingenuity we could achieve much in improving the edible quality of ham & bacon but NEVER a flying pig. HA! In nature, we have no genetic scientists so the example that I'd have to provide would be to throw pieces of a puzzle in a box and shake it till they all come together. Nature is a very violent and unreliable thing and it can really shake you up but when it is all done and said, if you were a box full of pieces...you'll probably be a box full of pieces even with a million years of shaking and hoping. Odds are, whoever is doing the shaking will get bored and trash the box if it was necessary for the puzzle to transform or die. The math just isn't there. Thus... (extinction).

The video I have now included deals with myth, evidence and the possibilities that are being overlooked and downright ignored. To ignore the other possibilities (and I haven't excluded evolution) but to exclude the possibilities of ID or to ignore the "holes" of evolution, one must be ignorant. Evolution is a theory at best and at worse it is a "half theory/fact" under the so-called scientists who are nothing more than followers of the cults that have fooled so many evolutionist "warmers". Many of them are intolerant, ignorant and rude but that is to be expected when the TRUTH hurts so much.

I hope this video is interesting to whomever wishes to view it. As wild and KraZy as it may be in certain sections, it makes very interesting points and does raise legitimate questions. in my opinion (which is just as good as anyone elses) it actually offers more evidence of its theory of origins than what evolution offers. Still, if one believes in evolution and a "missing link" perhaps the ID and Creationists should provide evidence of Loch Ness while the evolutionists provide evidence of Sasquatch. Seems fair to me if one is to exclude one theory over another. RIGHT? RIGHT!!!!....unless you're LEFT. HA!

Enjoy the videos... some are really off the wall but ALL of the them have interesting and fascinating discussion of our POSSIBLE origins. Only a fool can refuse to ask questions or refuse to accept/consider the many theories.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe6DN1OoxjE&feature=related (everything you know is WRONG) AGAIN...EVERYTHING.
[You don't need one "missing link" to prove Darwinism/Evolution...you need several missing links to smoothly bridge the gap and so far we don't even have a finger]

Intelligent design, Creation and Evolution....ALL very interesting THEORIES:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjsIn7yd2x8 We shouldn't say: "I don't like that evidence and I won't accept it". That isn' science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSoIzF6a1no&feature=related {may wish to MUTE the video because of annoying music}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=BbRlMn4UpeU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4FOsxvCOc4&feature=related

[Missileman]

Thanks for the video, Revelarts,

Thanks, Tyr, but Evolution (as 'dictated' by many these days, is BOTH theory and fact! You gotta love the left and it sounds exactly like the WARMERS....does it not? They they are so intolerant and it boggles their mind to see and hear great minds debunk the so-called "proof" in either.

FACT: There are NO known fossils chimp fossels and they only have similar genetics. Then again, we have amazing similarities in various ways to swine. It is believed that there are no proto-chimpanzee fossils or proto-gorilla fossils...unless many of the fossils that are [alleged] to be early "man" or "ape men" or "cave men" are, IN FACT, simply gorilla and chimps or extinct varieties of apes and chimps. All primates have 48 chromosomes while we have 46.....Ummmmm, someone should get Miss to explain that one. Heck, we aren't even in the same class as we are bipeds. Surely a "missing link" among chimps would be walking around today (upright that is). And where did Miss go anyway? Post Modern Prophet...you wasn't too mean the last time in bringing up all the HOLES within evolution that Miss and those like him follow blindly and with their extreme biased towards others were you?

I doubt very seriously that any of the lemmings will or have given any regards or consideration to your writing, links or intelligent quest for TRUTH and possibilities. I provided a fantastic video to bacteria by Dr. Morris and your video was certainly as enlightening and touched base on the same topics of concern when trying to understand the origins of life and of species. There is no evidence of evolution but there is evidence that our universe is dying and species are going extinct...not evolving to survive for the drastic change in climate and other factors are (to be fair...USUALLY) too great and too sudden for a species to have time to "evolve". As Dr. Berlinski so adequately put it, [a dog has always been a dog]. I dare say that if a sea-like creature EVENTUALLY became a cow-like creature (or vise versa), there should be a species that survived during the Transforming/"missing link" period of that creature just as we still have apes and we still have man...yet we do not have (and never have had an Ape-man (other than Tarzan of course). Seriously though, how hard is this to understand and see the HUGE hole in evolution. There are animals that share appearance with one another BUT that is all they usually share so they can never or should never be considered as proof of evolution. Science doesn't work that way...at least it shouldn't. Why would the "in-between" transitions disappear and the beginning and end results are still thriving? Hhmmmm...true science would and should ask this question. Funny thing is, those who are usually find themselves ousted through Nazi-like actions of discrediting, firing and black listing those who oppose them.

I can understand how we could try and breed or force a certain environment on a pig to where it will one day fly but even with our best efforts, I don't see it happening. Maybe with hi-tech genetically ingenuity we could achieve much in improving the edible quality of ham & bacon but NEVER a flying pig. HA! In nature, we have no genetic scientists so the example that I'd have to provide would be to throw pieces of a puzzle in a box and shake it till they all come together. Nature is a very violent and unreliable thing and it can really shake you up but when it is all done and said, if you were a box full of pieces...you'll probably be a box full of pieces even with a million years of shaking and hoping. Odds are, whoever is doing the shaking will get bored and trash the box if it was necessary for the puzzle to transform or die. The math just isn't there. Thus... (extinction).

The video I have now included deals with myth, evidence and the possibilities that are being overlooked and downright ignored. To ignore the other possibilities (and I haven't excluded evolution) but to exclude the possibilities of ID or to ignore the "holes" of evolution, one must be ignorant. Evolution is a theory at best and at worse it is a "half theory/fact" under the so-called scientists who are nothing more than followers of the cults that have fooled so many evolutionist "warmers". Many of them are intolerant, ignorant and rude but that is to be expected when the TRUTH hurts so much.

I hope this video is interesting to whomever wishes to view it. As wild and KraZy as it may be in certain sections, it makes very interesting points and does raise legitimate questions. in my opinion (which is just as good as anyone elses) it actually offers more evidence of its theory of origins than what evolution offers. Still, if one believes in evolution and a "missing link" perhaps the ID and Creationists should provide evidence of Loch Ness while the evolutionists provide evidence of Sasquatch. Seems fair to me if one is to exclude one theory over another. RIGHT? RIGHT!!!!....unless you're LEFT. HA!

Enjoy the videos... some are really off the wall but ALL of the them have interesting and fascinating discussion of our POSSIBLE origins. Only a fool can refuse to ask questions or refuse to accept/consider the many theories.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe6DN1OoxjE&feature=related (everything you know is WRONG) AGAIN...EVERYTHING.
[You don't need one "missing link" to prove Darwinism/Evolution...you need several missing links to smoothly bridge the gap and so far we don't even have a finger]

Intelligent design, Creation and Evolution....ALL very interesting THEORIES:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjsIn7yd2x8 We shouldn't say: "I don't like that evidence and I won't accept it". That isn' science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSoIzF6a1no&feature=related {may wish to MUTE the video because of annoying music}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=BbRlMn4UpeU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4FOsxvCOc4&feature=related

Once again, you display a total lack of any understanding of the evolutionary process. Your demand for a half-ape, half-man missing link speaks to that ignorance. Evolution is the buildup of millions of small changes over the course of immense spans of time, not some hybrid half and half instant change. It's no wonder you would consider creation and YOUR theory of evolution competing theories. YOUR theory of evolution is as farsical as creation. The problem is, YOUR theory of evolution isn't evolution.

BTW, if you're going to "wonder" where my response is to someone else's post it should be after you've addressed mine to you. You don't have to worry about me going anywhere...I'll be here to shove your silly creation myth up your ass sideways each and every time you break it out.

[PostmodernProphet]

I thought not....

[jimnyc]

Miss.....if I join in this conversation would you respond this time?.......you haven't replied to one of my posts since I destroyed you in a debate like this two years ago.....


I thought not....

Perhaps he has you on his ignore list? :dunno:

[taft2012]

This always confuses me. They say Neanderthal was a different species than Homo sapien, but that they did interbreed and have offspring together.

So is that truly different species, or a different genus? Or are they discussing what we would call different "races" today, and being quite offensive by calling them different species?

Was it like a horse and a donkey mating and making a sterile mule?

What is science's basis for declaring a fossil a:
a. human species
b. human genus
c. human of a specific race

I'm enjoying the conversation, but I'm still in the dark about these questions.

For instance, if these are different species, how do we descend from a completely different species? I can see if they were a different genus, sort of like horses and zebras having a common ancestor. But a different species? That being the case, they could just as easily say we descended from cats.

Different species can not procreate, as far as I know.

Does anyone know anything about any of this?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Originally Posted by Missileman
Hey genius! If there were a single shred of evidence that disproved evolution, scientists would abandon the theory...that's how science works. Science isn't about giving equal consideration to all theories but going to where observations and evidence lead. As I said in an earlier post, you have no clue what science is or how it works.


Originally posted by PostmodernProphet
Miss.....if I join in this conversation would you respond this time?.......you haven't replied to one of my posts since I destroyed you in a debate like this two years ago..... ...liberals, yech!.....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join in and lets see your presentations. The more the merrier I usually say.-;)--Tyr

[Missileman]

Perhaps he has you on his ignore list? :dunno:

Correctomundo! Has been for a very long time.

[red state]

I'm sure that this video of a debate will interest ALL who love the forums such as DP.com. Hopefully this will spark enough interest in those who refuse to even consider other possibilities or theories (other than the weak theory of Evolution).

Look, the majority of science refused to believe that there was more than one solar system OR, perhaps, that we weren't the center of the universe but the Bible tells us that we were NEVER the center. The Bible also explains MANY aspects of DNA and even the loony intelligent design folks who have many VERY interesting yet off the wall ideas KNOW that the genetic issue will NOT support evolution. We are winning in the global warming debate and 'alternative' theories pertaining to our origin is winning as well because TRUTH or truths ALWAYS surface (regardless of how THEY have tried to silence such truth). The left always back up their OPINION by calling our opinion LIES or claim that they are right and we are wrong (just as a child would react to a truth that it was not willing to accept).

What you find in our world (physical evidence) is in Horizontal 'adjustments' rather than vertical "improvements to higher forms of life". Any time a vertical change occurs, it is either a decline in a species and/or extinction itself. We explain creation and creation suggest that SIN causes all things to continually decline. The extinction of animals right down to the death of stars. This is due to the curse that God placed on His creation after the fall of man. Even horizontal 'adjustments', although saving a species for a while, the end result is inevitably a decline not a climb or a promotion to a higher form of life. In basic physics, we have constants but the quality of energy always decreases over time. Chaos is always the end result and we believe this will always be the case until the Creator does what he says He will do at the end. The big bang suggests chaos and from chaos comes no order and what we see in Creation, Evolution, Intelligent Design and other theories requires substantial ORDER of the highest level. So unless Evolution can explain something besides the Big Bang or whatever else may have started this vast and amazing CREATION, there must be a beginning (even if one must contemplate a beginning from a beginning). The main theme of my saying all of this is: If you can't prove anything, yet other reasonable explanations are available, there is no logical reason not to explore or teach ALL possibilities for a STRONG foundation of REAL science. We do not have a problem in teaching evolution but we detest the limitations that lemmings place upon us all through their ignorance and intolerance.

Within Evolution, one would expect, after billions of years of horizontal "transitions", to find intermediate forms...vast numbers of intermediate forms. Instead, we find none and only find extinction of the same forms that existed then existing today. Creation seems to have a much firmer foundation in this as we find sea and land animals within the same layers as the same geological times (which suggest that our Creator also preserved proof of the Great Flood). To suggest that there are intermediate forms of life...especially when such life forms share a common trait or living condition, one must (for example) assume that their are Cogs or Dats somewhere within fossil records. Likewise, there should probably be 'Whows' and 'Coales' intermediates (from the cow to whale example that evolutionists have preached in times past). There are none, of course, and this is a big problem with evolution just as the chaotic Big Bang Theory is to the highly organized gradual promotion of ORDER that is necessary for evolution. To suggest that chaos and random "accidents" have provided the miraculous universe we have to day would be irresponsible to say the least. One of the funniest things that I enjoy about evolutionists is that they say that evolution takes place to slowly to see....however, the lack of proof we see with fossils having evolved, they say, are because changes happened too fast for us to have intermediate life form changes. Which is it. You can't have it both ways YET evolution is full of these irregularities. Evolutionist then walk by faith...not by site but FAITH is not a science....as they so eagerly tell those such as myself. The creation model, unlike the evolutionary "model" explains the "GAPS" within fossil records whereas evolution is stomped by them. I found it particularly interesting that Dr. Morris seemed very respectful and dealt with his theory without criticism of the opposing view or without a seemingly god-like knowledge of what the other may say. I simply got an entirely different tone from the the opposing side and because of this seeming attack, learned much less of evolution and more of how evolutionists are not only superior in knowledge but have the capability to read minds. Dr. Morris, as a Geologist before becoming a Creationist knew of dating methods and has extensively explained the imperfections of such dating methods. As for the billions of light years away and our seeing stars from that far....I look at this as a theory as well because we have no way of knowing what the star's distances actually are. Of course, this is my limited understanding but as an excellent marksmen, I can tell you that I have judged distances through laser range finders and to get an extremely accurate register of distance, lasers MUST be able to pinpoint a target and return and this time of return provides the distance it takes for this burst of light to reach the receiver of the range finder. How can one do this if it would take said beam of laser to get to the target and return (all within our lifetime). Dr. Morris did suggest that the furthest that we could speculate a relative distance of stars would be about 300 light years so if stars are 2,000 light years away and if light was not simply spoken into existence within its destination, then it would have already gotten here long ago. This would also account for an BORN stars of recent (IF) we discover newer stars that may have been created 6,000 light years away (the approximate age of CREATION according to the Bible). Dr. Morris did not have a problem with Miller's so called "gotcha moment" because if something as fast as the universe can be spoken into existence then ALL things (including set motion activities such as LIGHT and the age of mature rocks, plants and animals would also be 'spoken'. In Miller's own words, he confirmed, yet again, the accuracy of what Dr. Morris has explained in greater detail so as to not mis-lead the audience...information that Miller failed to mention in his opening speech when discussing the "gotcha moment". Miller also stated that the 'estimate' of a star's distance is dependent on variables, one of which was the assumption of a star's distance being judged by its brightness. WOW...out of all the sizes, colors and intensities of millions of stars, they base their "ASSUMPTION" of distance on any particular star's brightness. No matter though because if you're that powerful as to create even the smallest of micro organisms FROM NOTHING then you should have no problem with other factors. Dr. Morris also revealed some VERY interesting facts about the inconsistencies and other factors as to determining age of rocks or fossils and how that it is something that can not be confirmed with any accuracy. An example was given when they had aged recent volcanic rock that, although VERY young, was aged at millions of years. For one thing it depends on how much exposure something has been subjected to and the consistency of how long it was exposed in addition to being within a closed system without corruption from various other sources and extraordinary circumstances but these variables can never be confirmed just as the distances of stars can not be confirmed unless we actually visit said stars or are able to generate a measurement system that is MUCH faster than the speed of light that can be transmitted and received at a certain amount of lapsed time. No, just as everything else in their THEORY, it is assumptions from which they attempt to stay afloat. As for Miller's pointing out that Morris's Creation theory has gaps regarding no record of angiosperms, he pretty much cut his own throat by essentially staying that the gaps in his theory, likewise, prove that the gaps in so-called transitions prove that there are NO transitions or evolved forms. Good job Mr. Miller! Miller also made reference to how the creator "welded us" by using the same fabric of life. If this is true, should not ALL forms of life share a very distinct and extremely common strand of DNA? After all, if we share 50% or our DNA with Bananas shouldn't we share at least 75% with say...an opossum? Fifty percent relativity to bananas isn't even all that much, considering any two randomized DNA sequences will have 25% match overall. Heck, even the 95 or so percent isn't much at all considering how the slightest of change within DNA strands can be very significant. by chance. Given the constraints already mentioned in that there are a basic set of genes needed by any organism, I'd guess that 50% match is probably near the limit of "unrelatedness." As cognitive scientist Daniel Povinelli, of the University of Louisiana, puts it: “That rough similarity in our nucleotide sequences obscures the fact that the same genes may have dramatically different activity levels in the two species.” In other words chimps and humans aren’t anywhere near as alike as Dunbar would have us believe, nor even remotely as alike as dogs and wolves actually are. STILL, my question would be that; "if we were all created by ONE Creator, wouldn't the evidence of DNA similarities simply point to a single Creator/Designer?" Hhhmmmmm...Meanwhile, Dunbar’s analogy also crumbles when we consider that by some scientific forms of reckoning dogs are actually two members of the same species (canis lupus, canis lupus famliaris), while chimps and humans (pan troglodytes, homo sapiens) aren’t even in the same biological family. Morris was challenged to provide quotes, evidence and other things and Morris took him up on that and recieved loud applause for doing so...respectfully, I might add. Miller, in his [gotcha moment] said: "The Lord has delivered him into my hands." Yeah...well, it was Miller who seemed to be the one 'delivered'. HA!!! Sadly, ridicule, during PART 4 of the debate (which was the question segment from audience members) was issued to Dr. Morris when it was Dr. Morris who had been so civil, respectful and tolerant to the other side. This is the same attitude and intolerance that we so often times see from the left and it is sad that rebuttal can't be delivered without sarcastic remarks and disrespect...even for great minds such as Dr. Henry Morris.

I had the privilege to meet Dr. Henry Morris and he was not only a gentlemen of the truest since of the word but was also a brilliant mind of our day. I find it repulsive at the MANY personal shots that Miller fired off to Dr. Morris while Morris remained a gentleman and OPEN to other's ideas. Yes, I side with Dr. Henry Morris for obvious reasons BUT, I truly believe that if I were not a Christian and I were still a believe in Evolution as I once was, Morris would have gained much respect and raised many legitimate questions as to the origins of creation. I hope this debate between Miller and Morris is given the attention that it deserves so that we may be able to discuss all "possibilities" and theories that actually have evidence and not speculation. I would view such questions and opinions as educational and hope that opinions are treated with respect because this is a very sensitive subject.

Debate between Morris/Miller (1981) *In the closing comments, Morris killed Miller and was applauded (at Miller's own college unless I'm mistaken)!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lfqBlR8qv4

[red state]

Missile man wrote:Once again, you display a total lack of any understanding of the evolutionary process...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~Good one Miss! U got me!

:lol::lame2: Did anyone expect anything else out of the 'great' mind? I suppose we should all just :bow2:in awe of his superiority.

Once again...you simply "MISS". Once more, your display of TOTAL lack of understanding and tolerance of TRUE science can only be described as biased hate and love of ignorance that TRUE science frowns upon.

Great one or two liners by the way. Simply telling someone how ignorant they are without addressing certain topics is what I'd expect from the likes of you. the likes who run from a debate by spouting how ridiculous one theory is while claiming that the other is infallible. The fact is, none of the THEORIES can be proven but yours certainly has a multitude of holes and unexplained reasons for the many holes. At least those with intellect address these holes as a problem but you don't even see the problem because you don't even understand TRUE science.

I'll have to let Post Modern Prophet own you again cuz I don't have the time or the interest in debating and bringing up legitimate questions and concerns while you reply with a few one or two liners that tell everyone how those who simply oppose you have an inferior intellect. Makes me think of the guy who has to go around telling his workers that he's in charge. If you're really in charge or respected.....you don't have to go around reminding everyone. HA!

I doubt you'll check the video debate out that I posted or read the problems many (even scientists) have with the many holes in your faith because that is what Evolution is...a Faith.

[red state]

This one has Missile written ALL over it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjsIn7yd2x8

"Faith Followers of Evolution must constantly remind
themselves that what they see was not created."

[Missileman]

Missile man wrote:Once again, you display a total lack of any understanding of the evolutionary process...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~Good one Miss! U got me!

:lol::lame2: Did anyone expect anything else out of the 'great' mind? I suppose we should all just :bow2:in awe of his superiority.

Once again...you simply "MISS". Once more, your display of TOTAL lack of understanding and tolerance of TRUE science can only be described as biased hate and love of ignorance that TRUE science frowns upon.

Great one or two liners by the way. Simply telling someone how ignorant they are without addressing certain topics is what I'd expect from the likes of you. the likes who run from a debate by spouting how ridiculous one theory is while claiming that the other is infallible. The fact is, none of the THEORIES can be proven but yours certainly has a multitude of holes and unexplained reasons for the many holes. At least those with intellect address these holes as a problem but you don't even see the problem because you don't even understand TRUE science.

I'll have to let Post Modern Prophet own you again cuz I don't have the time or the interest in debating and bringing up legitimate questions and concerns while you reply with a few one or two liners that tell everyone how those who simply oppose you have an inferior intellect. Makes me think of the guy who has to go around telling his workers that he's in charge. If you're really in charge or respected.....you don't have to go around reminding everyone. HA!

I doubt you'll check the video debate out that I posted or read the problems many (even scientists) have with the many holes in your faith because that is what Evolution is...a Faith.

You cherry pick a small portion of my posts, don't respond to or refute the lion's share of what I've written, and then claim victory in the debate based on the brevity of my posts? You're as dishonest as you are ignorant. I don't blame you for running away though...if I was as outgunned as you are in this debate, I'd be heading for the hills too.

[PostmodernProphet]

Correctomundo! Has been for a very long time.
ever since he lost the argument he's still trying to panhandle as unbeatable.....

[fj1200]

Why again is science and faith being discussed in the same thread?

[red state]

Why is this discussion talking about faith...because Evolution is a faith and other theories should be part of the classroom....even though MISSile is too ignorant, blind, biased and lazy to see, research and agree with my being RIGHT. I'm always right and he's always wrong. Whatever....that junk in the one liners is getting old and only proves who is less intelligent or able to carry on a conversation without it ending up lacerating the other party.

The left always see things through very narrow vision which is why I do not usually call them liberal. They do provide some great or two liners though that are always accompanied by pop shots. No matter though...it is expected from those with limited intellect. I've gotta go to work now...I'll check back in to tell Minute Man how stupid an incredibly WRONG he is. If an intelligent answer or contribution to a debate forum is met with telling everyone that they're wrong or ignorant....I can do that as well. And it doesn't take near as long typing out what I feel. He/she/it is really not worth my time anyway and if he can RUN, Run, run from PostModernProphet, I suppose I can do that too (but I won't). I'm gonna have to pull that old debate up or something cuz I'd really like to read how Missileman got his @$$ kicked by PMP (just like what is happening now...all by himself).

Keep those one liners coming boy missile.

3853

[jimnyc]

Why is this discussion talking about faith...because Evolution is a faith and other theories should be part of the classroom....even though MISSile is too ignorant, blind, biased and lazy to see, research and agree with my being RIGHT. I'm always right and he's always wrong. Whatever....that junk in the one liners is getting old and only proves who is less intelligent or able to carry on a conversation without it ending up lacerating the other party.

The left always see things through very narrow vision which is why I do not usually call them liberal. They do provide some great or two liners though that are always accompanied by pop shots. No matter though...it is expected from those with limited intellect. I've gotta go to work now...I'll check back in to tell Minute Man how stupid an incredibly WRONG he is. If an intelligent answer or contribution to a debate forum is met with telling everyone that they're wrong or ignorant....I can do that as well. And it doesn't take near as long typing out what I feel. He/she/it is really not worth my time anyway and if he can RUN, Run, run from PostModernProphet, I suppose I can do that too (but I won't). I'm gonna have to pull that old debate up or something cuz I'd really like to read how Missileman got his @$$ kicked by PMP (just like what is happening now...all by himself).

Keep those one liners coming boy missile.


red state - please read our latest rules update - http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?3487-Debate-Policy-Rules

[gabosaurus]

My high school friends always held me up as proof of the existence of the flat assed and flat chested female species, so there might as well be a flat faced human as well. :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

Why...

Personally I'd rather read the one-liners that take one line rather than the one-liners that drag on for two paragraphs. But that's just me. The study of evolution is scientific, the study of creation/faith is not. The twain shouldn't meet.

[Missileman]

Personally I'd rather read the one-liners that take one line rather than the one-liners that drag on for two paragraphs. But that's just me. The study of evolution is scientific, the study of creation/faith is not. The twain shouldn't meet.

Exactly! I can make a point in a couple lines while Red State takes up a half page and makes no point at all.

[Missileman]

red state - please read our latest rules update - http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?3487-Debate-Policy-Rules

Let him drone on with his juvenile crap. He looks more foolish with every post.

[Missileman]

My high school friends always held me up as proof of the existence of the flat assed and flat chested female species, so there might as well be a flat faced human as well. :rolleyes:

I'll beat Jim to the punch on this one...there's just no way to judge whether your friends were right or not without some pics. :laugh2:

[taft2012]

In today's news:

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/65398-humans-didnt-breed-with-neanderthals


Just as we were all getting used to being part-Neanderthal, Cambridge University scientists say we might not be, after all.

Research over the last two years has appeared to indicate that humans interbred with Neanderthals deep in the past, leaving traces of their DNA within us.

But a new study indicates that it's common ancestry, not hybridisation, that best explains the average one-to-four per cent DNA that those of European and Asian descent share with Neanderthals.

"Our work shows clearly that the patterns currently seen in the Neanderthal genome are not exceptional, and are in line with our expectations of what we would see without hybridisation," says the university's Dr Andrea Manica.

"So, if any hybridisation happened - it's difficult to conclusively prove it never happened - then it would have been minimal and much less than what people are claiming now."

Neanderthals and modern humans share a common ancestor who is thought to have spanned Africa and Europe about half a million years ago.

About 350-300 million years ago, though, the two populations became separated. The Europeans evolved into Neanderthals, and the Africans into modern humans.

However, as today, populations wouldn't have been completely mixed across continents: closer populations would have been more genetically similar to each other than those further apart. And because of this, the amount of ancestral DNA shared with Neanderthals would vary.

By examining the different genetic makeup among modern human populations, the scientists attempted to quantify this variation. They simulated a large number of populations representing Africa and Eurasia over the last half-million years, and estimated how much similarity would be expected between a random Neanderthal individual and modern humans in Africa and Eurasia. The resuts were pretty much what we see today.

"Thus, based on common ancestry and geographic differences among populations within each continent, we would predict out of Africa populations to be more similar to Neanderthals than their African counterparts - exactly the patterns that were observed when the Neanderthal genome was sequenced; but this pattern was attributed to hybridisation," says Manica.

"Hopefully, everyone will become more cautious before invoking hybridisation, and start taking into account that ancient populations differed from each other probably as much as modern populations do."

[taft2012]

I don't get a lot of this.

Scientists will hold up a skull bone fossil from cave men types, which look very similar to each other, and not that different than our skulls today, and talk about them all being different species.

Meanwhile, I can hold up a skull bone from a chihuahua and a Great Dane today, which would look nothing alike, yet they are the same species, genus, and can procreate together (physical challenges notwithstanding)

I may have a lot of my biology wrong (Bio 101 was over 30 years ago)... but this whole "different human species" things doesn't sound right. If it's a different species, how do they decide it's a human species and not another primate species, like apes or gorillas?

[Shadow]

In today's news:

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/65398-humans-didnt-breed-with-neanderthals


Found a related article...


Did humans and Neanderthals 'do it'? Some experts doubt it


One of the most titillating tales in the study of human origins — focusing on whether Neanderthals interbred with modern humans — has just gotten more tangled.

Over the past couple of years, studies of Neanderthal DNA samples painstakingly extracted from ancient bones have suggested that contemporary non-Africans can trace up to 4 percent of their genetic code (http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2010/05/06/4350416-neanderthal-dna-lives-on-in-some-of-us?lite) to our long-extinct Neanderthal cousins. The genomes of modern-day Africans, in contrast, have virtually nothing in common with the Neanderthals. Researchers assumed that the genetic contribution for the non-Africans was passed down through cross-species sex (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44277901/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/how-sex-neanderthals-made-us-stronger/) during the time that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens lived in close proximity in Europe, tens of thousands of years ago.

However, there's another possibility: Maybe that common genetic code was passed down from the common ancestor of Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis, hundreds of thousands of years ago in Africa. Today, researchers at the University of Cambridge reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (http://www.pnas.org/) that such a scenario provides a better fit for the genetic data. They say there's no need to assume that anatomically modern humans did the Neanderthal nasty, a process known more scientifically as hybridization.
"Our work shows clearly that the patterns currently seen in the Neanderthal genome are not exceptional, and are in line with our expectations of what we would see without hybridization," the lead researcher, Andrea Manica, said in a Cambridge news release (http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/research-raises-doubts-about-whether-modern-humans-and-neanderthals-interbred/). "So, if any hybridization happened — it's difficult to conclusively prove it never happened — then it would have been minimal and much less than what people are claiming now."

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/13/13265954-did-humans-and-neanderthals-do-it-some-experts-doubt-it?lite

[PostmodernProphet]

Query: If there can be that much variation between Homo Sapiens from Papua New Guinea and Homo Sapiens from Europe and yet they remain both Homo Sapiens, then by what measure can we say that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens are actually different species instead of different races?.....

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I don't get a lot of this.

Scientists will hold up a skull bone fossil from cave men types, which look very similar to each other, and not that different than our skulls today, and talk about them all being different species.

Meanwhile, I can hold up a skull bone from a chihuahua and a Great Dane today, which would look nothing alike, yet they are the same species, genus, and can procreate together (physical challenges notwithstanding)

I may have a lot of my biology wrong (Bio 101 was over 30 years ago)... but this whole "different human species" things doesn't sound right. If it's a different species, how do they decide it's a human species and not another primate species, like apes or gorillas?

To support their Evolution Theory they just make shat up. That simple and yes they get by with it, example-Global Warming Scam. -Tyr

[Missileman]

I don't get a lot of this.

Scientists will hold up a skull bone fossil from cave men types, which look very similar to each other, and not that different than our skulls today, and talk about them all being different species.

Meanwhile, I can hold up a skull bone from a chihuahua and a Great Dane today, which would look nothing alike, yet they are the same species, genus, and can procreate together (physical challenges notwithstanding)

I may have a lot of my biology wrong (Bio 101 was over 30 years ago)... but this whole "different human species" things doesn't sound right. If it's a different species, how do they decide it's a human species and not another primate species, like apes or gorillas?

Maybe this will help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

[taft2012]

Maybe this will help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Thanks for the link from your GED class.

The issue I was discussing is more along these lines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

[ringotuna]

I'm enjoying the conversation, but I'm still in the dark about these questions.

For instance, if these are different species, how do we descend from a completely different species? I can see if they were a different genus, sort of like horses and zebras having a common ancestor. But a different species? That being the case, they could just as easily say we descended from cats.

Different species can not procreate, as far as I know.

Does anyone know anything about any of this?

Taft, interspecific mating is common in both nature and controlled mating. I do it all the time. Since Genus is higher up on the classification scale,(not as closely related as species) different genus' are less likely to mate successfully and reproduce than are different species. I'm personally not aware of any instances of cross genus derivations. That of course doesn't mean it's not possible.

[ringotuna]

As I went poking around Taft, I found an example of inter-genetic mating, Goats and Sheep.

[Missileman]

Thanks for the link from your GED class.

The issue I was discussing is more along these lines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

Ah well, if it's GED level, it's WAY over your head and I wasted the effort posting it to you.