Evolutions Family Tree Theory Collapsing (doctrine, techniques, eternal, Jesus Christ)

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

Dane_in_LA, if it makes you feel good, you are right, and it was my mistake. The jury was not convinced by the false evidence presented for evolution. So the non evolution crowd won. Yet their win was short lived when the verdict was over turned by a higher court.
.

Thanks, I appreciate it. And for what it's worth, the law against teaching evolution stayed on the books, so perhaps it wasn't a clear win for either side.

[rifleman]

(gone for a few days, so I'm not going to read all the posts here, but...) I do love it when a Creationist steps so thoroughly on his own neck. I, unlike Tom, actually and thoroughly read the links he provides, and think about them. He never reads mine. They're too complicated perhaps?

Or perhaps it's a comparison of my intellectual honesty versus his.

Anyhow, I just had to cut and paste this right from the text of his link, which he seems to think absolutely exterminates the "theory" of evolution. Funny!

Oh, but before I paste it here, I will say that Tom's admitted sum-total knowledge about science and biology and evolution and genetics is "nil", a fact that glowingly surfaces here.

Scientists have, in fact, long been speculative about exactly how the known and observable methods by which an organism's genotype (sorry, Tom, I know you don't understand any of this, but you're certainly not the only audience, else I'd leave...) changes.

Chance mutations have and are easily observed in any lab, (not "manipulated, as some blathering idiots have suggested recently...) and the simple and observable FACT that any species' DNA map is NOT identical to that of their bretheren's is simple but inescapable PROOF (of the real kind, not the fakey Christian kind) that all kinds of mutations do occur.

Else, no humans would have genetic diseases, kidney problems, etc. We men would also, every one of us, be perfect, un-mutated copies of Noah's sons (BTW, no-one has ever explained where the women came from to propogate with those lonely boys, since God had just killed everything that wasn't on the Ark. Oh well.)

Well, frankly, that's the end of the story. Evolution proved.

But how it works on and within a large population, in several distinctly different ways, to propagate (sorry again, Tom) variations within a species (as in "race" or "sub-species"), or, in the longer term, between them, is what Tom's article is actually talking about.

Not, silly boy, that evolution didn't occur, but rather that the simplistic and early (and, BTW, academically quite old) concept of a linear step-wise evolution of each of today's species is not the ONLY way that genetic changes accumulate, as visible changes in the phenotype (oh, sorry again, Tom. I know, I'm using a lot of real big words and concepts here).

So. Let's take a brief look at what one little part of the artticle that Tom found for us actually says, versus his error-filled interpretation. (I suppose he really hoped no-one would actually intelligently read it...)

Highlights in bolded, underlined text by me:

"Bernard Wood, of George Washington University, Washington DC, wrote in Nature that although Toumaï is not a 'missing link', it does suggest a diversity of ape-men lived even six to seven million years ago.

[ed. note: You understand Tom, what he's saying here? That there was, in fact, an intermediate, transitional species en-route to being later-model modern hominids?]

Indeed, the discovery strengthens the argument that humans did not evolve in a linear progression from apes that roamed the planet 10 million years ago. Rather, our lineage sprouted in many directions — the so-called 'bushy' model — before we evolved as Homo erectus and then modern humans, Homo sapiens.

According to Australian National University anthropologist Dr Alan Thorne, the Chad discovery is important because it "pushes things back a few million years".

"From this and previous discoveries of things like teeth and a few femurs … it's clear that there were upright people six to seven million years ago," he said."

So... let's get this very straight;

The discovery Tom desperately wishes to quote in order to disprove and "collapse" Evolutionary fact actually pushes our segregation from a pre-ape species back (earler, not later, Tom) several million more years, and goes on to note that we evolved from various ancestors in a well-branched model, not a singular lineage.

Got it? Great; extra points to those who are nodding in happy unison. Not all though, huh, Tom? Some are sobbing.

(To absolutely clarify Tom; no-one today of any biological knowledge says we all evolved directly from apes; the Creationists are reading some VERY OLD text books, and of course refuse to even crack a new, say, later than 1985, book on the subject.) Well, their loss, as usual.

Rather, evolutionary science is simply and continually better illuminating the complex ways that these genetic variations have led to the vast diversity of species seen today.

We absolutely know and understand (and can easily prove) the mechanisms by which new genetic data arrives, is tested, and is incorporated into an organism's DNA. We know that if it works to improve that organism's survival, or enables it to move into an unoccupied niche (Oh drat; sorry again, but do look it up, Tom...) then it will do exactly that.

Not exactly rocket science, now is it? Tab A into Slot B.

And since we can show it any time in the lab, it's also impossible to deny, tho' some Creationist posters here persist in denying the undeniable. Quite the feather (or something else quite smelly) in their caps, I'd say!

We also know that, given the slow accumulation of these changes over vast time-spans (also proven from other geological and DNA evidence trails, not to mention several other co-supportive observations from unrelated disciplines), fresh, different phenotypes have arisen. (Ooops; again, my apologies, Tom. This must be aggravating [oh, darn, there I go AGAIN!] for you, not having the faintest idea about any of these concepts or words, and yet having to attack and criticize them, huh?).

These fresh new phenotypes have been defined by biologists and geneticists as new...

SPECIES.

Rather than collapsing the fact of evolution, as Tom hopefully and desperately suggested, his "find" further expands and solidifies the basics of our understandings of Evolution. No-one said it was all simplistic, linear and direct. Nope; it does require some diligent thought and an open mind to understand it, and that's why there are PhDs out there, working to clarify the remaining smaller and smaller information gaps...

Their painstaking efforts thus do not disprove anything. From this study, the score:

Evolution: 1; Creation: ZERO

Well, sorry, Tom. Better luck next time. But also:


THANKS for the lesson! I eagerly look forward to your next daring expose'!!!

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

Good job there quoting a journalist's headline and text to counter the claim that "missing link" is used by journalists and not scientists...

KC; this little enlightenment will have just gone ripping right over his head.

Remember, again, that Tom (C34) has no working knowledge of any aspects of any science. He cannot even explain how a match burns, or a lightbulb produces light, much less the structure of tRNA and it's amazing relationship with the spiral helix genetic data-recording structure that I directly and ancestrally share with Dottie my Wonder Cat....

[FredNotBob]

Originally Posted by yeshuasavedme

Darwin is the founder of modern evolutionist doctrine. Darwin was not an educated scientist, but a reprobate with a BA in Theology. And evolution is not a truth, but is a mystic composition of many peoples, who build on shifting sands which blow about with the winds. You just can't pin the foundation down to any one truth, as it is a fairy tale which changes with the telling.

Just replacea few select words and your statement still stands, fully accurate, on its own.

Here, I'll do it for you:

Christianity is the founder of modern Creationist doctrine. Jesus was not an educated scientist, but a man who called for tolerance of his fellows. And Creationism is not a truth, but is a mystic composition of many peoples, who build on shifting sands which blow about with the winds. You just can't pin the foundation down to any one truth, as Christianity is a fairy tale which changes with the telling.'

There. Still accurate to the topic being discussed, and I sincerly and honestly apologize if I offend anyone with my revisions.

As you can see, both statements sound almost the same -- you can make that paragraph say almost anything, about almost anyone.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

Mary Leakey's conclusion on evolution would agree with mine. Quoted by the Associated Press. Leakey said "all these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, (THATS A LOT OF NONSENSE)." 12/9/1996

Anyone else catch that this wasn't even correctly quoted from the Creationist sites Campbell's been copying from? The date here is obviously wrong, as 2 minutes of research will tell you - this is the date of her death.

I'd assume the rest of the so called quotes are of similar quality.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by FredNotBob

Just replacea few select words and your statement still stands, fully accurate, on its own.

Here, I'll do it for you:

Christianity is the founder of modern Creationist doctrine. Jesus was not an educated scientist, but a man who called for tolerance of his fellows. And Creationism is not a truth, but is a mystic composition of many peoples, who build on shifting sands which blow about with the winds. You just can't pin the foundation down to any one truth, as Christianity is a fairy tale which changes with the telling.'

There. Still accurate to the topic being discussed, and I sincerly and honestly apologize if I offend anyone with my revisions.

As you can see, both statements sound almost the same -- you can make that paragraph say almost anything, about almost anyone.

True, but the original paragraph not only can be applied in that way, it cannot truly be applied to Darwin. He researched, used the scientific method, and published his results. How, then is he judged not to be a scientist, other than tossing out accusations of being some kind of 'reprobate'?

I can only assume that it reflects the idea of creationists that it is some sort of closed circle, the membership of which qualifies one as an authority figure whose pronouncements are to be accepted without question. That is hardly the case. That is why Creationists funding colleges where creationist non -science is taught will not make scientists of Creationists, no matter how many certificates they dish out.

[Mercury Cougar]

Originally Posted by Kele

My undergrad degree is in Anthropology. I am currently working on my Archaeology graduate degree--so I am not just some layman surfing the web for information. I studied this fossil (a plaster cast) back in my first undergraduate Biological Anthropology class. This is NOT a new discovery. The skull of Sahelanthropus tchadensis, or Toumai, was discovered in 2001 in Chad, in the southern Sahara desert.

Wow, excellent information! Thank you.

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by MontanaGuy

Campbell34,
I think that much of the confusion regarding evolution can be attributed to the fact that a great many people don't realize that species are always branching out in different directions. When a creationist asks the question "If we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?" this illustrates the point I'd like to make. Evolution does not proceed in a linear or straight line from point A to point B. The reason it becomes difficult to trace the lineage from an ancestral stock to a species living today is because so much branching has taken place that it's hard to figure out which ones died out and which ones evolved into species that continued to evolve into other species which are living today. In other words, the problem isn't a lack of fossil ancestors or missing links (to use your outdated term), the problem is that there are so many of them. As more fossils are discovered and analyzed that fall within a time period in which we didn't already have fossils then it makes the job alot easier to piece it al together.
There is one fact that no creationist can talk their way out of. Modern species are only found in modern strata and as dating has become far more precise scientists can place newly discovered fossils into their correct geologic timeframe. If evolution was not factual then all of the fossils would not be so neatly arranged by the age of the strata that they're found in.

(There is one fact that no creationist can talk their way out of. Modern species are only found in modern strata?)

Well here again you can only believe your statement, if you are willing to ignore all that other evidence that is out there.

Fossil men were discovered in strata where humans were not suppose to be found. Species thought to have been long-ago ancestors of the human race have been dated to recent years. And this fact has created more confusion among scientists. Such evidence is spoken of in the link below.

Mini Study: Out-of-Place Fossils

[Arjay51]

[quote=Campbell34;10425028Well here again you can only believe your statement, if you are willing to ignore all that other evidence that is out there.[/quote]


By doing this we would become as you....

[yeshuasavedme]

Originally Posted by FredNotBob

Just replacea few select words and your statement still stands, fully accurate, on its own.

Here, I'll do it for you:

1 Christianity is the founder of modern Creationist doctrine.

2 Jesus was not an educated scientist, but a man who called for tolerance of his fellows.

You are misinformed and uneducated in history.

1 "Christianity" did not invent "creationist" doctrine. Moses, a Hebrew, wrote the Torah and the Book of Jasher long before Christ was come in flesh.


2 Jesus the Christ is YHWH the Creator, in the Person of God the Word, who is come in human being flesh of second human being creation, as Kinsman/Redeemer to Adam.
As the Creator of all things, Jesus Christ -who is YHWH of the Old Testament, in the Person of God the Word who is the only Person in YHWH "seen" by men and angels, from the beginning of creation- made all things by His wisdom and understanding, in six ordinary days of evenings and mornings.