Do you support evolution? (scrutiny, America, bible, believers)

[Lucidus]

Originally Posted by PanTerra

Hmmm, IBeDavid sure blew that one. Is ID even defined in the movie?

From reviews that I have read ID is not explained in detail. That's too bad, I would pay to see a movie that discusses ID on its own merit. It looks to be a propaganda film, an unfortunately it is not even "good" propaganda. Good propaganda is subtle, this movie advances a conspiracy theory that would make even truthers blush and equates evolution to Marxism and Nazism.

[sanspeur]

Ben Stein is to intelligent design...As Al Gore is to global warming...Both are frauds.

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

Biologist Francis Hitching, in his book The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong states:

If we find fossils, and if Darwins theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The minor inprovements in successive generations should be as redily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In the oppsite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "INNUMERABLE TRANSITIONAL FORMS MUST HAVE EXISTED, BUT WHY DO WE NOT FIND THEN EMBEDDED IN COUNTLESS NUMBERS" Darwin felt though "extreame imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging up more fossils. But as more fossils were dug up, it was found almost all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals. 43

First of all, the Neck of the Giraffe is a book that has been reknowned the world over for it's calamity of trying to promote Lamarckian evolution instead of Darwinian evolution and trying to refute it. You should be ashamed of yourself for doing exactly what I asked you not to do in providing arguments that don't attack Darwinian evolution but some other twisted form.

So, that leads me to my next point in which you say that almost without exception fossils dug up were very close to current living animals. Campbell, have you ever seen a T-Rex fossil? I don't know about you, but that looks mighty different to me than any living thing currently on this planet.

Now, I want to address the blatant misquote that you provided of Darwin's Theory just to show how irreconcilable and dishonest you are. Because, the more I read from you, the more I realize you are lying through your teeth. So, here's what Darwin ACTUALLY said and you can open ANY copy of his book if you don't believe me.



I have attempted to show that the geological record is extremely imperfect; that only a small portion of the globe has been geologically explored with care; that only certain classes of organic beings have been largely preserved in a fossil state; that the number both of specimens and of species, preserved in our museums, is absolutely as nothing compared with the incalculable number of generations which must have passed away even during a single formation; that, owing to subsidence being necessary for the accumulation of fossiliferous deposits thick enough to resist future degradation, enormous intervals of time have elapsed between the successive formations; that there has probably been more extinction during the periods of subsidence, and more variation during the periods of elevation, and during the latter the record will have been least perfectly kept; that each single formation has not been continuously deposited; that the duration of each formation is, perhaps, short compared with the average duration of specific forms; that migration has played an important part in the first appearance of new forms in any one area and formation; that widely ranging species are those which have varied most, and have oftenest given rise to new species; and that varieties have at first often been local. All these causes taken conjointly, must have tended to make the geological record extremely imperfect, and will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps.

He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation. He may disbelieve in the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed between our consecutive formations; he may overlook how important a part migration must have played, when the formations of any one great region alone, as that of Europe, are considered; he may urge the apparent, but often falsely apparent, sudden coming in of whole groups of species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: I can answer this latter question only hypothetically, by saying that as far as we can see, where our oceans now extend they have for an enormous period extended, and where our oscillating continents now stand they have stood ever since the Silurian epoch; but that long before that period, the world may have presented a wholly different aspect; and that the older continents, formed of formations older than any known to us, may now all be in a metamorphosed condition, or may lie buried under the ocean.

Passing from these difficulties, all the other great leading facts in palaeontology seem to me simply to follow on the theory of descent with modification through natural selection.

So it seems Darwin himself debunked this caricature of an excuse you come up with and yet you persist with your cannards. Again, let's bring something worthwhile to the table, Campbell, because so far you're not bringing anything new or valuable except making yourself look like a blatant liar.

Originally Posted by Campbell34

The problem with your belief speaking of gaps in the fossil record is that the gaps only exist when it comes to the proof for Evolution. To believe that every time a species was in it's evolution of change a gap appeared which would block us from seeing this change is insane. Millions of years of Evolution happening, and every time we just keep missing it. Come on, give me a break. So no, you have not even come close to answering my question on the missing transionals in the (STONE) record.

I believe I just addressed this in the quote above. How cool. Two birds with one stone (no pun intended). And, by the way, you keep asking for fossils in the stone record... Campbell... fossils are stones.

Originally Posted by Campbell34

Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and why he thinks she is our ancestor. Roy Holt asked a question; "How far away from Lucy did you find the Knee? (The knee bone was actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, "Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?" Dr. Johanson: "Anatomical similarity." (Bears and dowgs have anatomical similarities).
After the meeting, the creationists talked with Dr. Johanson and continued the questions. Dr. Johanson argued that homology (particularly DNA homology) is good proof for evolution. Tom Willis responded that "similar structures nearly always have similar plans. (like) similar bridges have similar blue prints." After more discussion along this line, Dr. Johanson gave this amazing reply: "If you don't believe homology, then you don't believe evolution, and evolution is a fact!'5

Wow... This is pretty pathetic and almost downright slanderous. First of all, the knee bone wouldn't have mattered if it were found or not. You can see in the following pictures why as I have circled the part where the femur connects to the knee bone. Regardless, you can see the inward (or outward depending on which picture) slant that the femur has on upright walking hominids in regards to how it connects to the knee. So, while the knee bone was a good find, it wasn't of utmost necessity to have found it.

You see, the thing that clued Dr. Johanson in that this was an upright walking species was the fact that the femur had a bit of an inwards curve. All upright walking hominids have this curve. Here is Lucy's femur as compared to the human femur and ape femur. You'll notice that the uprights (us and Lucy) walk with our legs close together while other primates tend to walk with their legs more spread apart.

Lucy Picture (notice the slight angle the femur goes at)



Human Femur



Chimpanzee Femur (our closest modern day relative)



And if you look at that, you'll see that where the femur connects to where the knee should be is a lot more angled than that of the chimpanzee. So, that is what tells us, among other things, that Lucy was an upright walking hominid.

So, how did Dr. Johanson know that the anatomical similarity was the same? Well, they also had the pelvis of lucy (which the femur connects to) and so it's not really hard to fit the femur in when all the other pieces connect together. You're accusing Dr. Johanson of essentially being a fraud and I can't believe that you honestly think that if that find was mired in any sort of fraud that it'd have been completely dishonored by now. In fact, further findings of australopithecines confirmed Dr. Johanson's findings (and you forgot to mention them) and so once again I find you only sprouting half-truths and lies, Campbell.

Originally Posted by campbell34

So I guess any bone found within one and a half miles of Lucy a year later is a fact. WOW. I might also point out, that Lucy is a partial fossil skeleton, about the size of a chimpanzee, supposedly female, and only 40% of Lucys bones are present, and it appears we are not even sure if all those bones belong to her.

Only 40% of Lucy's bones are present from the initial find. We have found plenty more australopithecine tracks, bones (to include the skull that was missing from Lucy's find), etc... from other digs. And, to capitalize on your point that a bone was found as you say one and a half miles away from Lucy (which I doubt but I'll just agree for arguments sake) is nothing to really worry about. Lucy was around 3.6 million years old. In that time, I can certainly imagine that perhaps at some point due to some condition this bone that you claimed moved (you said knee which is not typically found in the fossil record) is not a really unlikely scenario. I mean... a wild dog could have picked it up, or a carrion, or a river might have once existed there. It's hard to say. But one mile away is not really a cause for concern when we're talking 3.5 millions years. Now, if Dr. Johanson found one part of the leg in Indonesia and the other in Ethiopia than I might have cause for concern.

In all, once again, you are caught red handed in your lying and despicable efforts at trying to pass yourself off as someone who knows anything about evolution. It's quite clear that you know next to nothing about it, and I strongly urge you to do some studying before posting on this topic again. Seriously, take my suggestion, read Darwin. You might be surprised at how incredibly misrepresentative you are.

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

Which of the fossilized skulls I posted was Ramapithecus? Here's a clue - none of them. How about actually dealing with the evidence provided instead of trying to change the subject? It's pretty hard to believe your claims that no evidence exists when you continue to ignore what evidence has been shown. It's almost like you have no way to refute that and instead need to distract people instead.

Ok lets look at four of your skulls, first being under the letter I. Rhodesia Man. This skull is now considered simply a human, and not a Transional. So I'm sorry, you will have to remove that one from the list. Then there is Neandertal man, these three skulls will be found under the letters J-K-and L in your link. New DNA testing has revealed that Neandertal man has no link to human Evolution at all, so those three skulls are not transionals either. So here again your list is shrinking, and I have taken only five minutes of research to come to this obvious conclusion. The evidence you have provided only strengthens my position.

[MontanaGuy]

Campbell34 wrote:

New DNA testing has revealed that Neandertal man has no link to human Evolution at all, so those three skulls are not transionals either. So here again your list is shrinking, and I have taken only five minutes of research to come to this obvious conclusion. The evidence you have provided only strengthens my position.

Do you realize that for decades creationists kept on insisting that Neadethals were just mishapen human beings and now that you've been proven wrong you're scrambling to use that as evidence against evolution. The fact that Neaderthals existed in the first place shows a branching out into new species from the ancestral stock that all primates decended from. You haven't strengthened your position, you've only demonstrated your complete lack of knowledge of the subject.

[PanTerra]

Originally Posted by MontanaGuy

Campbell34 wrote:

Do you realize that for decades creationists kept on insisting that Neadethals were just mishapen human beings and now that you've been proven wrong you're scrambling to use that as evidence against evolution. The fact that Neaderthals existed in the first place shows a branching out into new species from the ancestral stock that all primates decended from. You haven't strengthened your position, you've only demonstrated your complete lack of knowledge of the subject.

Creationists are still claiming that they were just people with rickets.
The caring Neandertal
Apologetics Press - Neanderthals—Missing Link or Diseased?
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Nean...s_with_rickets

[sanspeur]

I think you guys are wasting your time debating with campbell. He has a mind like a steel trap!...

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

Ok lets look at four of your skulls, first being under the letter I. Rhodesia Man. This skull is now considered simply a human, and not a Transional. So I'm sorry, you will have to remove that one from the list.

Funny, that's not what real scientists have concluded this is. In fact, it looks like a textbook transitional - Human Ancestors Hall: Kabwe Cranium

The braincase profile is low and slopes back from a large supraorbital torus reminiscent of earlier H. erectus specimens. There is also the remnant of a sagittal keel and an occipital torus at the back of the skull, also recalling H. erectus. However, the face is more modern in appearance (less prognathic, flatter) and the brain size of about 1300 cc. is larger than seen in H. erectus. Thus, this cranium preserves many traits that are reminiscent of earlier H. erectus and hints of more modern traits known later in H. sapiens.

So, where's the evidence to back up you claim that this is fully human, or are you just making stuff up again?

Then there is Neandertal man, these three skulls will be found under the letters J-K-and L in your link. New DNA testing has revealed that Neandertal man has no link to human Evolution at all, so those three skulls are not transionals either.

It's possible to be a transitional fossil without being in the direct lineage of humans.

So here again your list is shrinking, and I have taken only five minutes of research to come to this obvious conclusion. The evidence you have provided only strengthens my position.

Showing non-human ancestors of modern humans strengthens your position that god magically created people out of dust? I don't see how that follows.

Now, where is the evidence to back up your claim that these are all frauds and lies? Or are you flip-flopping yet again?

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by MontanaGuy

Campbell34 wrote:

Do you realize that for decades creationists kept on insisting that Neadethals were just mishapen human beings and now that you've been proven wrong you're scrambling to use that as evidence against evolution. The fact that Neaderthals existed in the first place shows a branching out into new species from the ancestral stock that all primates decended from. You haven't strengthened your position, you've only demonstrated your complete lack of knowledge of the subject.

Yes I'm aware of that, which means both camps were wrong. And it is a pure assumption by you to suggest that Neaderthals show a branching out into a new species. There is zero evidence for that, and you can only make such a statement based on Evolutionist dogma, and not sound science. They were a seperate species, and your own people will tell you that. I can recall in High School how we were told that Neaderthals were part of the human missing link. As it turns out, they are not, and never were.

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

Funny, that's not what real scientists have concluded this is. In fact, it looks like a textbook transitional - Human Ancestors Hall: Kabwe Cranium


So, where's the evidence to back up you claim that this is fully human, or are you just making stuff up again?


It's possible to be a transitional fossil without being in the direct lineage of humans.



Showing non-human ancestors of modern humans strengthens your position that god magically created people out of dust? I don't see how that follows.

Now, where is the evidence to back up your claim that these are all frauds and lies? Or are you flip-flopping yet again?

Real Scientist? Wikipedia states, Rhodesian Man is a hominin fossil. He is dated between 125,000 and 300,000 years old. Previously, some reports have given erroneous dates of up to 1.75 and 2.5 million years of age. Cranial capacity of the Broken Hill skull has been measured at 1,300 cm, which, when coupled with the more recent dating, makes any direct link to older skulls unlikely and negates the 1.75 to 2.5 million year earlier dating. Even if the skull looks like a text book transional, it's obviously not. And those real scientist of yours better do a little more research.

Well the link you showed me was trying to make the arguement that the skulls were a link to human evolution, which I donot believe. Also, trying to say they were transionals is just a belief that is not supported by evidence.
And Rhodesian Man would have to be dropped from that list because he is way to young.