Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With all respect... Please stop messing up the mean supject Please , No Ufo's stuff anymore ... The subject is about Darwin's theory of evolution .. Let's keep it that way ... Let's try to keep it on Earth Thank you
I'm sure you'll have some more wild conspiracy theories to explain away your star witness saying that you're wrong, but your credibility is pretty low at this point. Why should we waste any more time tracking down the truth behind the propaganda you're posting? Do you really want us to find more quotes from your alleged eyewitnesses correcting your false impressions of what they were talking about?
Buzz clearly stated in the video "what could it be"? The other videos were much more unambiguous than Buzz's which is why you chose not to comment on any of them. Nice try...Now back to Darwin's dead theory....
No .. You did not proof anything .. you just posted a few links... I did not post any links so I expect you to do the same thing .. lets keep it simple & direct here on this topic .
After you explain your point with your own words , Feed your word by any quote you see appropriate to supports your point of view then you can post what ever link that you want
I will till you what I understand ...
The story is based on a series of experiments conducted by the British physicist and biologist Bernard Kettlewell in the 1950s and it go like this : According to the account, around the onset of the Industrial Revolution in England, the colour of the tree barks around Manchester was quite light because of this, dark-coloured (melanic) moths resting on those trees could easily be noticed by the birds that fed on them and therefore they had very little chance of survival. Fifty years later, in woodlands where industrial pollutionhas killedthe lichens, the barks of the trees had darkened and now the light-coloured moths became the most hunted, since they were the most easily noticed as a result, the proportion of light-coloured moths to dark-coloured moths decreased. Evolutionists believe this to be a great piece of evidence for their theory. They take refuge and solace in window-dressing, showing how light-coloured moths "evolved" into dark-coloured ones .
I also understand that darwin's moth considered as the perfect demonstration of Darwin's theory of evolution ...
Am I wright ?
Ok ...
What you seems not to understand is Dark colored moths had existed in the moth population before the Industrial Revolution.
Only the relative proportions of the existing moth varieties in the population changed , what you also seems not to understand is that this experiment has been rejected from a lot of scientists and proven wrong & full of scientific errors , acording to molecular biologist Jonathan Wells in his book "Icons of Evolution" the story of the peppered moths does not reflect the truth. Wells discusses in his book how Bernard Kettlewell's experiment, which is known as the "experimental proof" of the story is actually a scientific scandal .
Why ?
To many reasons ... for example :
*In 25 years of fieldwork many scientists such as Cyril Clarke and Rory Howlett, Michael Majerus, Tony Liebert, and Paul Brakefield concluded that "in Kettlewell's experiment, moths were forced to act atypically, therefore, the test results could not be accepted as scientific .
The main thing is even if that science experiment was complete & genuine, it would still provide no evidence for evolution.
That is because as the numbers of light-colored moths declined as a result of natural selection the darker population increased but the population acquired no new genetic features .
"Natural selection" is not an "evolutionary mechanism," contrary to what evolutionists claim.
It is capable neither of adding a new organ to a living organism nor of removing one nor of changing an organism of one species into that of another.
*There was no correlation between the moth population and the tree trunks as claimed by Kettlewell and repeated by almost all evolutionist sources.
*The moth photographed by Kettlewell, were actually dead mothsKettlewell used dead specimens glued or pinned to tree trunks and then photographed them.
In truth, there was little chance of taking such a picture as the moths rested not on tree trunks but underneath the leaves .
These facts were uncovered by the scientific community only in the late 1990s .
So as a final result "no new genetic features" and that is what my subject is all about & that is what my question was all about ..." a new genetic features as an evidence for evolution " .
It is very clear to every fair-minded that no one was able to answer it conclusively until now .
Please not another link .. there are to many pages and points I dont know what we could select to have a conversation about ... copy/past the point (evidence) that you consider as an answer to my question & I would be more than happy to reply about it .
Proving the theory of evolution does not contrary with creation .. because at the end the question will remain .. Who creat the firs cell & who Make life runs in it ?
Who find those divisions in that well orgnise arrangement ?
Why only humans Preferred from other creatures ? etc ...
So .. no shaking required !!!
I have provided ample evidence...It is your choice to ignore it, so I'm done with you. It is futile to debate with one who wishes to maintain his ignorance.
Are you just going for that whole devil's advocate, contrarian thing? Or are you really this ignorant?
Just stick with the arguments presented on this thread... Creation vs Darwin? Most here choose one or the other. I choose "none of the above". I've also provided more than enough third party links that back up my stance. What you should do now is provide third party links that back up your stance; then we can have a civilized debate without any more name calling. Chances are you might know more about evolution than I do. Then again, I might just know more about the "alternative theories" than you do. In the end, we both might come away from a civilized debate with a little bit more knowledge of the other person's point of view (which is my ultimate goal; expanding my knowledge). Are you up for the challenge? If so, start posting your links.
Buzz clearly stated in the video "what could it be"?
Wow, so he saw something interesting and didn't automatically jump to a conclusion about what it could be. Then later after examining it in more detail "Aldrin confirmed that there was no such sighting of anything deemed extraterrestrial, and said they were and are "99.9 percent" sure that the object was the detached panel.". Sounds like someone else around here should do more of this - look at the evidence rather than twist things to fit what they wish was true.
Why ignore the rest of what he said? Why ignore that the video was intentionally edited to make it sound like the believes the opposite of what he said? What motive do you have that's so important you have to lie about another person despite the overwhelming evidence of your dishonesty? This does nothing but make you and your associates look like a bunch of crackpots.
I have provided ample evidence...It is your choice to ignore it, so I'm done with you. It is futile to debate with one who wishes to maintain his ignorance.
Are you serious !!!
Man I just replied on you one sentence about " darwin's moth" with nearly a whole page !!!
you call that ignorance?!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheartNo .. You did not proof anything .. you just posted a few links... I did not post any links so I expect you to do the same thing .. lets keep it simple & direct here on this topic . After you explain your point with your own words , Feed your word by any quote you see appropriate to supports your point of view then you can post what ever link that you want
I will till you what I understand ... The story is based on a series of experiments conducted by the British physicist and biologist Bernard Kettlewell in the 1950s and it go like this : According to the account, around the onset of the Industrial Revolution in England, the colour of the tree barks around Manchester was quite light because of this, dark-coloured (melanic) moths resting on those trees could easily be noticed by the birds that fed on them and therefore they had very little chance of survival. Fifty years later, in woodlands where industrial pollutionhas killedthe lichens, the barks of the trees had darkened and now the light-coloured moths became the most hunted, since they were the most easily noticed as a result, the proportion of light-coloured moths to dark-coloured moths decreased. Evolutionists believe this to be a great piece of evidence for their theory. They take refuge and solace in window-dressing, showing how light-coloured moths "evolved" into dark-coloured ones . I also understand that darwin's moth considered as the perfect demonstration of Darwin's theory of evolution ... Am I wright ? Ok ...
What you seems not to understand is Dark colored moths had existed in the moth population before the Industrial Revolution. Only the relative proportions of the existing moth varieties in the population changed , what you also seems not to understand is that this experiment has been rejected from a lot of scientists and proven wrong & full of scientific errors , acording to molecular biologist Jonathan Wells in his book "Icons of Evolution" the story of the peppered moths does not reflect the truth. Wells discusses in his book how Bernard Kettlewell's experiment, which is known as the "experimental proof" of the story is actually a scientific scandal . Why ? To many reasons ... for example : *In 25 years of fieldwork many scientists such as Cyril Clarke and Rory Howlett, Michael Majerus, Tony Liebert, and Paul Brakefield concluded that "in Kettlewell's experiment, moths were forced to act atypically, therefore, the test results could not be accepted as scientific . The main thing is even if that science experiment was complete & genuine, it would still provide no evidence for evolution. That is because as the numbers of light-colored moths declined as a result of natural selection the darker population increased but the population acquired no new genetic features . "Natural selection" is not an "evolutionary mechanism," contrary to what evolutionists claim. It is capable neither of adding a new organ to a living organism nor of removing one nor of changing an organism of one species into that of another. *There was no correlation between the moth population and the tree trunks as claimed by Kettlewell and repeated by almost all evolutionist sources. *The moth photographed by Kettlewell, were actually dead mothsKettlewell used dead specimens glued or pinned to tree trunks and then photographed them. In truth, there was little chance of taking such a picture as the moths rested not on tree trunks but underneath the leaves . These facts were uncovered by the scientific community only in the late 1990s . So as a final result "no new genetic features" and that is what my subject is all about & that is what my question was all about ..." a new genetic features as an evidence for evolution " . It is very clear to every fair-minded that no one was able to answer it conclusively until now .
Please not another link .. there are to many pages and points I dont know what we could select to have a conversation about ... copy/past the point (evidence) that you consider as an answer to my question & I would be more than happy to reply about it .
Proving the theory of evolution does not contrary with creation .. because at the end the question will remain .. Who creat the firs cell & who Make life runs in it ? Who find those divisions in that well orgnise arrangement ? Why only humans Preferred from other creatures ? etc ... So .. no shaking required !!!
If everyone here start replying on every topic by sending links with a couple of words then we should call this forum "links collection forum " The truth is you just have nothing to say !!! I understand I will move on then to the next point ...
Are you serious !!!
Man I just replied on you one sentence about " darwin's moth" with nearly a whole page !!!
you call that ignorance?!!!!
If everyone here start replying on every topic by sending links with a couple of words then we should call this forum "links collection forum " The truth is you just have nothing to say !!! I understand I will move on then to the next point ...
No, You are fooling no one, as they are not your words. You copy and paste from web sites, claim the words as your own, and neglect to post the links, which is against the TOS. You remain ignorant when it comes to evolution and how it works as do the web sites you copy from.
A brief and simple, but well-done point-form video for the scientifically intransigent. Of course, the last tag line ("Think about it!") does require just that.... which may not be possible for some. Too frightening and threatening to their state of grace.
Let's stop here for one second. What would cause the "smarter" humans to exist in the first place? I agree that natural selection has "chosen" us to be here now. However, what caused "us" to rise in such a relatively short time when we now know that apes go back nearly 8 million years? Also, why are we the ones that need physical tools (ie shoes, clothes etc) just to be comfortable on a planet that supposedly gave us the "better" traits for survival?
Like I stated before, the apes are built better physically than humans. All we have is our intellect. Every other advantage goes to the chimps (even memory).
Rather, imagine a lineage of ape-like (or lemur-like) species, just as strong, but with the ADDITIONAL advantages of a chance mutation that resulted in a more logical way of reasoning, plus the ability to think about future consequences, led our ancestors (the ones which we can now absolutely back-track DNA lineage to, BTW...) to dominate. Why? Because they may have thought about things like simple food preservation (piling some roots into a dark hole, for instance), or simple clothing (a skin draped over the body at night), or migration to a better locale in the winter, perhaps even taking some root vegetables with them, or a means of defense by simply picking up a sharp fire-hardened stick. And so on. As we humans learn more, the better we also learn to adapt to our world (via careful science and it's logical answers supported by high probabilities, BTW...). Or, these days, we adjust it to fit our needs.
Of course, as time went on, such once-critical things as long, dangerous fangs, the ability to scale trees, and a total body covering of fur, became less important in light of other, far more specialized adaptations. And as these unique specializations grew, they tended to promote even more of those types of intelligence-based adaptations. It's called Evolutionary Vectoring, and has been tested and found to be an functional process that generates accelerated positive mutation adaptations. See The Precambrian Explosion for a vivid and now-documented example of accelerated Evolution.
Deny it all you wish, UC. That stubbornness certainly does not cancel out the processes of Evolution, nor disallow it's inevitability.
Back to my cave......
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Kettlewell used dead specimens glued or pinned to tree trunks and then photographed them. 
Enjoy this!
