Macro Evolutionists...

[logroller]

...
Prove it wrong is the standard? er hmm Ok.

6 days, prove me wrong.

BAM!

You know what i've always found intriguing is that the female human's menstrual cycle is 28 days, very similar to the moon, which is currently 29.XX days. Most scientists say its just coincidence; research has been done and something 40% of of those tested showed some response to lunar cycle, so that's 60% who didn't; hardly conclusive. However it has been shown the moon's orbit is slipping away from Earth at 4cm per year, which I believe would cause its period of revolution to increase. So my question is, when was the moon's cycle 28 days and could this be the time when modern humans developed? I've been studying the peopling of the New World, and much debate surrounds why the megafauna (rhino-like creature and mammoths etc) went extinct here. Humans were thought to be culprits, we just killed them wholesale-- big dumb animals didn't know we were a threat; while others say it was the Pleistocene glaciation and resultant shorter period in which to harden young, which was an aggravated stress on those larger animals with longer gestational times. Odds are its both, but it makes me wonder if humans too experience such stressors, and if the inability of humans to change/evolve our reproductive cycles will bring about our demise? Doesn't keep me up at night or anything, just food for thought?

[revelarts]

I'm not defending "Darwinism", I'm defending the Modern Theory or Evolution.

based on darwins work right..

btw, get some quotes that are little more recent than 30+ years ago.

So 30 years ago evolution wasn't true but now it is?

Also it's very easy to cherry pick quotes from crackpot books (anyone can publish a book), that is why peer reviewed journals are so important as sources....
A peer reviewed book, like a college textbook. Why is that an unreasonable demand?

Many if not all of those i quoted above are/were university factually and have published numerous peer reviewed papers. Don't you want to read contrary opinion from informed sources?

one of the above i quote is
"Pierre-Paul Grassé (1895 - 1985) was a French zoologist who served as Chair of evolutionary biology at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences.^[1][2] Pierre Grasse was also editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie".^[3]




Pierre-Paul Grassé stated the following: "Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." Grasse pointed out that bacteria which are the subject of study of many geneticists and molecular biologists and are organisms which produce the most mutants are considered to have "stabilized a billion years ago!".^[4] Grassé regards the "unceasing mutations" to be "merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect."^[5]
Pierre-Paul Grassé also wrote the following:

“

Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case. - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p.6 Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p.8 It follows that any explanation of the mechanism in creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypotheses. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formation of pure conjectures as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct. - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p.31[6]

[pete311]

based on darwins work right..

Some of it. It's been revised since Darwin. That is the great thing about science. What is your point.

So 30 years ago evolution wasn't true but now it is?

It's always been true, but in the past we obviously didn't have a clear enough picture of it. In thirty more years I bet the picture is even clearer. I think you are trolling right now. You know what my responses will be.

Many if not all of those i quoted above are/were university factually and have published numerous peer reviewed papers. Don't you want to read contrary opinion from informed sources?

one of the above i quote is
"Pierre-Paul Grassé (1895 - 1985) was a French zoologist who served as Chair of evolutionary biology at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences.^[1][2] Pierre Grasse was also editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie".^[3]

Unfortunately your scientist friend died 30 years ago and wasn't privy to the mass amounts of experiments that confirm evolution such as this that just came out
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/sc...body.html?_r=1

[revelarts]

...Unfortunately your scientist friend died 30 years ago and wasn't privy to the mass amounts of experiments that confirm evolution such as this that just came out
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/sc...body.html?_r=1

Nytimes? is that a peer reviewed textbook???? No.


but lets take a look

...Dr. Ratcliff suspects that the transformation of the yeast in his lab may offer hints about how animals and other lineages became multicellular hundreds of millions of years ago. “Forming clusters isn’t a freaky yeast thing,” he said. The closest single-celled relatives of animals, called choanoflagellates, also sometimes grow as clusters of cells.
Animals and plants did not evolve inside flasks, of course. But natural conditions could have favored clusters of cells. They might have been harder for predators to eat, for example. A cluster of cells might also be able to feed more efficiently in some cases...

...Dr. Ratcliff would not go into detail about where the yeast evolution was going until he published the latest results....

Well it's settled then.

[PostmodernProphet]

A peer reviewed book, like a college textbook. Why is that an unreasonable demand?

because you, yourself, don't understand the book well enough to realize there's nothing in any of them that counters what we are arguing.......you just assume it must be there because textbooks have been written...........

[pete311]

because you, yourself, don't understand the book well enough to realize there's nothing in any of them that counters what we are arguing.......you just assume it must be there because textbooks have been written...........

You're right, I'm not smart enough to convince anyone. Fortunately ten years ago this debate was already over and won by people who are smart enough.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evoluti...ign-trial.html

[darin]

You said it well, but in another thread, Pete. With creative license.

The concept 'something' eventually evolved from 'nothing'; that an organism can realize the value of, say, developing blood and a heart, is childish superstition. nothing more than fear tactics. fear? fear from simple, scared men who refuse to accept they are not gods. fear of being held-account to their actions and attitudes. fear of God. even if there was such a silly thing, it's comical how much "scientists" just make up on their own. Macro evolution is taught by perhaps well-meaning, but otherwise normal men who had no more idea than any of you. Yet, it's talked about as 'fact'. With no possible means to pass scientific tests.

[PostmodernProphet]

You're right, I'm not smart enough to convince anyone. Fortunately ten years ago this debate was already over and won by people who are smart enough.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evoluti...ign-trial.html

invite them over, I can show them wrong as well.....

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k5r5cRlctLM?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640">

Princeton mathematician and philosopher agnostic comments on some of the problems with evolution
</object>

[Gator Monroe]

Out of Africa will be Debunked within 20 years