Evolution, why us?

[Alchemist]

For the Goat:

Oldest fossils ever found may not be fossils after all
February 22, 2011

A rock formation in Western Australia was the site of great excitement a couple of decades ago when it revealed evidence of the oldest fossils of bacteria ever found, but a new study casts doubt on those findings. The Pilbara craton in the northwest of Western Australia is one of only two remaining areas of pristine Archaean (3.6-2.7 billion years old) crust remaining on Earth. (The other is is Kaapvaal in South Africa.) The region is renowned for its deposits of apex chert, a fine-grained cryptocrystalline material rich in silica and featuring microfibrous sedimentary rock. The Pilbara Apex Chert has been dated at 3.5 billion years old and contained what was thought to be filaments of the oldest fossilized cyanobacteria in the world.
There has been some debate about whether or not the deposits were really fossils since the formation is now believed to be a hydrothermal site rather than the remains of a shallow sea floor. The ancient remains of hydrothermal sites are sometimes mistaken for fossils.
Assistant professor of paleobiogeochemistry, Dr Alison Olcott Marshall and colleagues from the University of Kansas in the US decided to settle the debate by analyzing new samples of the Apex Chert. They cut small, 300 micrometer sections of the debatably biological filaments, but for the first time they also cut sections 30 micrometers long to enable more light to enter the samples.
The shorter sections revealed the filaments were actually fractures in the rock, filled with a dark mineral and a light, clear mineral. They used Raman spectroscopy to identify the minerals, which turned out to be hematite (dark) and quartz (light), neither of which are biological in origin.
Martin Brasier, of the University of Oxford, UK, who first proposed the formation was hydrothermal, said he was not surprised at the new study’s results since in 2002 his team found a fossil known as the “red banana,” which led them to suggest many of the filaments identified as fossils were hematite. …

https://xenophilius.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/oldest-fossils-ever-found-may-not-be-fossils-after-all/

[Midnight_Sun]

It's pointless to say that everything you have ever tried to use to destroy scientific data by simply finding articles of dissent has always backfired on you, but I still am amazed at how you dig for details that aren't there but yet brazenly overlook the simplest of points.

Since your classification system for animals is only "Bird, bug, bat, etc" and you refuse to understand the relationships, there is really nothing anyone with sound reasoning can use to persuade you from your silly arguments. Hence, a youtube video with someone who has already explained it to other Christian religitards may suffice:

Here is a simple rebuttal to some Christian idiot who thinks that a fossil of a 'reptile' at a certain age is the same reptile that exists today:

Again Aron-Ra destroys this nutcase:

[Alchemist]

^Sweetheart,

Is this all you can do?
Slander.

Your rebuttal had no substance in it.
No proof or proposition or evidence.
Just some self delusional rant on how I am not worthy of dialogue with your highness.
So be it. Since you are no longer speaking in the language of science and we have strayed farther than the interest of all who had originally participated in this thread, I will take us even farther than you thought I ever could.

With such pomp and vainglory you bring me this AaronRa.
As if he is some god of gods of the realm of sciences.
You kept urging me to produce for you an eminent and prestigious scholars, so this AronRaa must be the Sage of Sage of all Scientists...

Come back when you have a real "ELITE EXPERT" like you claim.



Why do I have to keep showing you examples and you haven't even shown me one example of a so called "expert' who debunks cladistics or evolution?

I'll give you that he is opposed to cladistics[/COLOR], but he is NOT against evolution. So find me where the 'majority' of those "ELITE EXPERTS" are against it all? When will it take for you to realize that the majority of biologists, scientists, teachers, believe in Evolution.

...


I wonder how many of those were from actual reputable scientists? I'll look at your list later.

So who is this Prolific Youtube Poster, Destroyer of Creationists and Champion of your adoration and love?

Who have I lost you to?








What gives babe?

Is it the beard?
The Sunglasses?
or the long hair...
frankly, I have all three ; )

But I must admit.
I can't win your heart against some staunch Religious Nutjob.

Damn you AaronRa...
You High Priest of Satanism!
You have won this girl's heart too..
YouTube - Not accepting evolution is dangerous - The Atheist Experience #644
YouTube - If Atheists Ruled The World [Special Guest: AronRa]
YouTube - Is Atheism Dependent On Evolution? - Atheist Experience 668
YouTube - 1st Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Thank you Midnight Sun.

You have proven me correct once again.

We have come full circle back to why people like you are actually advocating for this debunked pseudoscientific theory called "Evolution". It is because Atheists have adopted it as their Creed and the basis for their rejection of "Faith".

I will try not to go into my "metaphysical existential diatribe" but suffice it to say that you, Scimitar, Goat boy are confused and lost.

All three of you have adopted a western mind frame subconsciously and consciously have tried to give it an Islamic legitimacy. Scimitar is more mature than you two, so he is more open to discuss it with me on the other thread (he was), but you two wouldn't dare to disturb that delicate veil you've thrown over your dark, hidden, repressed urges. But they still surface. Nothing can hide in the depths of a man's soul forever...everything floats to the top..seeps through you for eyes that can see.

It might be just coincidence, but your nick name MidNight Sun, is not unique at all. Perhaps you may think you have come up with it at a spur. It has stirred some fancy in you. But the image, the symbol, of the Dark Sun, the Black Sun, is actually very old and archaic. In Popular mythology, it was the sign of the Nazis. The sign of indestructability.

Black Sun (occult symbol) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The Black Sun represents Lucifer:

Suns in alchemy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

YouTube - The Power of the Black Sun

"Lucifer’s Servants is at least partly a genuine Nazi propaganda tract and several passages make a good case for the worship of Lucifer. Indeed, this idea of Lucifer as a benign or divine being was familiar and congenial to the “white light” Theosophists of the 1920’s who, after all entitled one of their official German publications Lucifer."
"For Rahn, the Grail was an emblem set up in opposition to the established Church—indeed, was a Luciferian symbol—and for this the Nazis were grateful." "…the eternal struggle between Light and Darkness. Light in this case was represented by—not Jesus or Jehova— but by another spirit, the “Light-Bearer.” To Rahn, this Entity represented the highest good. To Rahn, the Nazi Reich in general—and the SS in particular—became servitors of an ancient pagan cult whose God was known to the medieval Christians not as Jesus but as Lucifer." "…and having established that they celebrated—as the numerous examples have proved—the marvels of the Crown of Lucifer, it is permitted to believe that they had faith in the existence of a Luciferian crown of eternal life. And if we follow this thought to its logical conclusion, we will say that, for them, the God of Love was none other than Lucifer in person. The God Amor is the God of Spring, as is Apollon. Apollon brought back the light of the Sun: he is a light-bearer, or “Lucifer.” According to the Apocalypse of John, Apollyo-Apollon was equated with the Devil, and according to the belief of the Roman Church…Lucifer is Satan."

Lucifer of The Black Sun « Esoteric Occultism

What is Satanism Anyway?

"Satanism begins with atheism," said Church of Satan High Priest Peter H. Gilmore in an interview. "We begin with the universe and say, 'It’s indifferent. There’s no God, there’s no Devil. No one cares!'


Why is your Priest Called Aron Ra?


Ra (alternatively spelled Ré), Egyptian *ri:ʕu, is the ancient Egyptian sun god. By the Fifth Dynasty he had become a major deity in ancient Egyptian religion, identified primarily with the mid-day sun. The meaning of the name is uncertain, but it is thought that if not a word for 'sun' it may be a variant of or linked to words meaning 'creative power' and 'creator'


Could this by why you are attracted to him?

Osiris was known as the Sun at Midnight which eloquently expresses his position on the Tree of Life, due north of the Sun, like the North Pole, the land of the midnight Sun. Osiris represents Neptune and the spirit of Pisces, the Fishes, portrayed by the darkest depths of the ocean, like the darkest depths of night. Of course Neptune is the furthest out of the major planets, in the midnight depths of space.

Perhaps it could be.




Do you know who the Mountain Goat is also a symbol of?



Also referred to as the Sabbatic Goat.

Coincidence?

Random Chance?

Maybe.

Scimitar?

Also a phallic symbol





13rd SS Division Logo

Scimitar Shrine


^ Do you see the connection?



Now...shun it. Laugh at it. Mock it.
I am just toying with you three, like you think you are with me.


I just want you to capture the feeling you have in your heart at this moment. I know exactly how you feel!
Ludicrous! Nonsense! Absurd! He must be insane! Preposterous!

Then Laugh with a grin on your face....nothing but soothsaying of a mad man...nothing to worry about.


sevlesrouy wonk ouy naht retteb ouy wonk I taht wonk tsuJ


Salam : ) :

[طالب]

This is really funny: http://www.myvidster.com/video/316851

[Midnight_Sun]

^Sweetheart,

Is this all you can do?
Slander.

Your rebuttal had no substance in it.
No proof or proposition or evidence.


Salam : ) :

Instead of attacking the poster (he's a well known Athiest), but regardless, a great advocate of sound science, you need to focus on the video itself. Come back with logical reply. All I needed to see was your satanist pic's and I knew you went on another crazy tangent. Try again!

Walaikum salam

[Midnight_Sun]

This is really funny: http://www.myvidster.com/video/316851

I knew there was a missing link between Al-Racist and Creationists. Thanks for the find!

[Alchemist]

Instead of attacking the poster (he's a well known Athiest), but regardless, a great advocate of sound science, you need to focus on the video itself. Come back with logical reply. All I needed to see was your satanist pic's and I knew you went on another crazy tangent. Try again!

Walaikum salam

Where is your logical reply sweety?

I am saying bats and bees...you are changing the goal post to some stupid argument between your god, aronra and some other douchebag youtube poster on what a lizard is.

Previously I asked you to define what a species is. You and the other two stooges. But none of you dare. I assume you feared some hidden agenda on my part.

I just wanted to test your knowledge on the basics of sciences. But now it has become apparent to me that you and goat have received your education from youtube and television shows like futerama.

Basically a species is distinct in that it can only propagate it's own distinct information through reproduction. A tiger and a lion can mate and produce a liger, but a liger is sterile. A horse and and a donkey can produce a mule, but a mule is also sterile. Thus only horses can mate with horses, and donkies with donkies. As such donkeys are a species different than horses. Similarly, we know that neanderthals and Denisovans interbreeded with what are considered the modern race of humans, so technically they were NOT different species but the same species as us. I even quoted you immanent scientists in the field who admitted the difference abstracted between the so called "species" of each were not even as varied as the differences that can be found between different races of today's people. So why are you being a goofball and trying to merge this debate with a fantasy debate on futerama between a talking crab, a cyclobe and a robot? Have you gone mad?


Even more retarded than that is that Aronra makes the claim that his parrot is more related to dinosaures than lizards! Then he shows more fantasy pictures of halfbird half lizard which have been debunked and cast aside in the scientific community upto 30 years ago...back when your bf Ra couldn't even grow a beard.
He shows a picture of an Archaeopteryx for example.

Your bf seems convinced that his bird is related to Dinosaures simply because this is what the dogma in evolution holds as being true, without any evidence to the claim. But I will now quote you the argument of a scientist.

Questioning Orthodoxy: Dr. Alan Feduccia Speaks on the Origin of Birds

Some brief notes from his lecture at the San Diego Museum of Natural History, 11/29/04

by Casey Luskin

On a night when I should not have taken a study break from finals (11/29/04), I heard Dr. Alan Feduccia (evolutionary biologist and chair of the Biology Dept at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) speak at the San Diego Natural History Museum on the origin of birds.

To begin, I'd like to highlight some of the main points he made during his talk: Archaeopteryx is a true bird.
"Dinofuzz" is nothing more than collagenic fibers found on many other fossils.
Today's highly touted "Feathered Dinosaurs" are a myth: some fossils (e.g. Caudipteryx) have flight-feathers but they aren't really dinos--they are secondarily flightless birds
Birds have digits 2-3-4, and theropods have digits 1-2-3. This is powerful evidence that birds couldn't have evolved from theropod dinos.(You should tell your bf AronRa about this)
Also, the theropod --> bird hypothesis requires that birds evolved flight from the ground-up. If Caudipteryx has feathers but not for flight, Feduccia finds this explanation quite tenuous. Put simply, ground-up proponents say feathers were pre-adapted for flight but evolved originally for insulation. This is silly because feathers are perfectly suited for flight, and very energetically costly to produce. If insulation was all that was needed, hair would have done the job just fine and would NOT have been nearly so costly. It strains credibility to say feathers evolved for insulation.
Feduccia prefers Microraptor as an ancestor of birds because he likes the trees-down hypothesis, not the ground-up hypothesis.
If birds didn't come from theropods, this does leave a rather large time-gap where there is essentially no fossil documentation of exactly what sort of dinos or other reptiles from which birds would have evolved.
(I personally hope people might consider "Option C,"--that perhaps birds did not evolve from dinosaurs or other reptiles.)
Report:
Until the late 1960’s, Feduccia says many thought Archaeopteryx was a feathered dinosaur. Many paleontologists said Archaeopteryx showed flight evolved in a "ground-up" fashion, meaning that the first birds evolved from land-dwelling dinosaurs. But many from the ornithological world felt something was wrong with that story. In 1980, Feduccia was putting together a book on birds, which included a chapter on bird origins. But after analyzing the claims that birds came from theropod dinosaurs, Feduccia said he felt like he was being asked “to put a round peg in a square hole.”

Feduccia was critical of drawings of Archaeopteryx done by Gregory Paul. Paul drew Archaeopteryx as a small dromaeosaur. But Archaeopteryx wasn’t cursorial—it was arboreal. It didn’t have a vertical pubis, so Feduccia says Paul drew it wrong. (The wrong drawing that your bf AaronRa showed)

Feduccia asked in particular why a terrestrial creature would have a reversed toe which is a feature for sitting on branches? Feduccia has correlated the curvature of bird claws to behavior. Flatness of claw tells if it is ground-dwelling but Archaeopteryx had a curved claw, indicative of perching behavior, and possibly suited for climbing tree trunks. Feduccia said computer tomography has found that Archaeopteryx has a brain and ear-canals similar to modern birds. In terms of wing-loading, Feduccia found Archaeopteryx falls right in the center of modern birds. Finally, looking at feather shape has shown that Archaeopteryx was a good flier. Asymmetry in feathers can tell you how well a bird flies. Feduccia firmly believes that Archaeopteryx is nothing short of a modern-like bird because it had an elliptical wing and asymmetrical feathers. Secondarily flightless birds have symmetric feathers. This, and many other features cited by Feduccia indicate that Archaeopteryx was an arboreal bird that was a good flier. Yet, he pondered, it is still drawn by some as a cursorial dinosaur-like creature.

Feduccia recounted how cladists strongly emphasized the claims that birds arose from theropods. Cladistics is essentially a statistical analysis comparing characteristics in various organisms, which then are used to structure hypotheses about ancestry. But Feduccia says that cladistics is incapable of dealing with convergent evolution, which he believes is “very prevalent” in vertebrate history, particularly with regards to the origin of birds. Feduccia gave some examples of where cladistics fails. It will put aquatic reptiles like mosasaurs with other ones that are not related at all. Within modern birds, Feduccia notes that those who construct phylogenies based upon cladistics place loons and grebes as closely related because of certain similar characteristics which are bioechemically and embryologically distinct. In particular, the “cnemical crest”—a swimming adaptation—is very similar in grebes and loons but they are formed totally differently embryologically.

One of the main criticisms made by Feduccia is the claim that it is possible for flight to develop from the ground-up. He asked what selective advantage feathers would have for running? He noted that some have cited pre-adaptation because it has been claimed feathers were useful for some dinosaurs as an insulatory pelt or for heat radiation in hot-blooded dinosaurs. But feathers are not only finely tuned for flying, they are energetically and embryologically costly to produce. Feduccia observed that feathers are the perfect aerodynamic structure. They’re strong, light, asymmetric, produce slotting wings, and are like Velcro in that they can return back to their original position. Plus they’re waterproof. Essentially, he said they’re the most complex structure ever to grow out of vertebrate skin. He calls them the “perfect” aerodynamic structure for flight and yet supposedly they evolved for endothermy! Feduccia doesn’t buy it. He says that for facilitating endothermy they are no better than hair which is much simpler and much less biologically costly. Once you’ve evolved feathers for endothermy you must explain how they would elongate on the wings. Feduccia noted that many evolutionists claim feathers elongated to catch insects—but Feduccia said feathers really aren’t very good for that and it again is a stretch to claim a structure so well-suited for flying and poorly suited for catching insects evolved for the latter, and not the former. Essentially, feathers are very very embryologically costly, very good for flying, and not exceedingly good at anything else. Feduccia is skeptical that feathers would have arisen for a purpose other than flight. In a moment of levity, Feduccia showed a slide of fossils which exhibit the beginnings of ground-up flight, and the slide was blank.

Feduccia also commented on Confuciousornis, which Feduccia (like most others) believes is a true bird. Feduccia was critical of those who have called it an earthbound dinosaur, such as what he called “Unscientific American.” He noted that it has the foot of a kingfisher and is incapable of significant ground activity. Ornithologists say it was a tree-perching bird. Furthermore, like Archaeopteryx, it had curved claws, indicating an arboreal lifestyle.

But what about all those alleged "feathered dinosaurs?" Feduccia divided them into two categories—those with dino-fuzz, and those with true feathers which have a central rachis and branching barbs. Sinosauropteryx had dino-fuzz. According to Feduccia, Dinofuzz need not have anything to do with the origin of true feathers. Feduccia says dinofuzz was very similar to many collagenic fiber structures found in other fossil organisms such as icthyosaurs, pterosaurs, ornithischian dinosaurs, and fossils species. He even said some pterosaurs have such collagenic fibers which clearly are filamentous structures, but had nothing to do with feathers. He sees no reason to assume that the dinofuzz on theropods was any different.

Feduccia was skeptical of those who claimed that some dinosaurs had a downy-covering. He observed that some baby ostriches are covered in downy feathers, but if they get wet, if they are not quickly warmed by the mothers wings, can easily die of hypothermia. For a species to spend its time covered in such feathers would be extremely maladaptive.

Feduccia did cite one fossil organism he thinks had proto-feathers—Longisquama. Had “parafeathers” with a hollow rachis, and attached individually by papillae. He said it had a nice furcula, and thinks this could be the origin of feathers.

Because Feduccia rejects dinofuzz as evidence for the origin of feathers, he thinks that any true feathered dinosaurs would have to be pennaceous. The first evidence of such supposedly found was Caudipteryx in 1998. But Feduccia says Caudipteryx is simply a bird--it is not a feathered dinosaur. Firstly, its center of gravity is forward like the center of gravity in a bird. Secondly, its wing which is essentially that of a modern bird with feathers perfectly in place like a modern bird. However, he thinks that its features indicate that it is in the process of becoming a secondarily flightless bird. He claimed that if a modern-day emu (a flightless bird) were preserved in the Chinese deposits of that age, many paleontologists would mistakenly think they are feathered dinosaurs. For Feduccia, a major problem with the claim that Caudipteryx represented an intermediate between dinosaurs and birds is that it comes long after Archaeopteryx, and Archaeopteryx was already a true bird.

Feduccia thinks one “trump character” in the debate should be the digits on the limbs. Both theropod dinosaurs and modern birds have tridactyl (three-fingered) hands---for many, this has been said to solidify the link that birds came from such theropod dinosaurs. He noted that in all amniotes, digits emerge during development from a cartilaginous array. The part that turns into digit 4 is always the same, providing a reference point for numbering the other digits. Feduccia says that developmental evidence supports that birds fingers are numbers 2, 3, and 4. (Our thumb is digit 1, and our pinky finger is digit 5.) This claim has been confirmed by studies of ostrich development, where digits 1 and 5 can be seen as small stubbs which become reabsorbed, straddling what become the fully developed digits 2, 3, and 4. But fossil evidence has established that in theropod dinosaurs, their three-fingers are digit numbers 1, 2, and 3. As Feduccia put it, there is a “digital mismatch.” This is significant because Feduccia believes it would be very difficult to a trait like this to change or switch once it had evolved. Feduccia says development of a hand is very developmentally constrained. Once you are committed to developing digits 2, 3 and 4 switching to 1, 2 and 3 would be very dramatic. Feduccia concluded this provides strong evidence that birds cannot be descended from these theropod dinosaurs.

If digits are indicative of ancestry, and birds didn’t come from theropods, then from whence did they come? To find the ancestors of birds requires going back to a time before reptiles had committed to the “1-2-3” or “2-3-4” digit orientations. He says we must go back to the late Triassic or early Jurassic to find animals that haven’t committed to 1-2-3. Thus, Feduccia believes the origin of birds is ancient. There are also not fossils showing how birds could have evolved on this route, and so Feduccia is content to believe that many fossils are yet to be found.

Feduccia names a number of reptiles which are “uncommitted” in terms of their digits which could be possible candidates for the avian basal stock. But he cannot tell for sure which, if any, represent actual ancestors. Finally, Feduccia’s favorite specimen is Microraptor, because he thinks it supports the claim that avian flight evolved from the trees-down.

An abstract to a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLE:

The Late Jurassic Archaeopteryx has been thought to have been a feathered predator adapted to running that represented a terrestrial stage in the evolution of true birds from coelurosaurian dinosaurs. Examination of claw geometry, however, shows that (i) modern ground- and tree-dwelling birds can be distinguished on the basis of claw curvature, in that greater claw arcs characterize tree-dwellers and trunk-climbers, and (ii) the claws of the pes (hind foot) and manus (front hand) of Archaeopteryx exhibit degrees of curvature typical of perching and trunk-climbing birds, respectively. On this basis, Archaeopteryx appears to have been a perching bird, not a cursorial predator.

This makes sense to you sweetypie?
Is this logical enough for you?

Are you convinced?

No?

Obviously not...

You are just a drone. A hypocrite. A munafiq. And a liar.

Now ...get lost.

[طالب]

Creationists have used the bird-dinosaur dispute to cast doubt on evolution entirely. How do you feel about that?
Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, and they've put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesn't bother me a bit. Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution: Animals and plants have been changing. The corn in Mexico, originally the size of the head of a wheat plant, has no resemblance to modern-day corn. If that's not evolution in action, I do not know what is.

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/feb/breakdialogue

[Alchemist]

^ well kiddo...here is another quote of his saying the opposite:


"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that."

Dr. J. Alan Feduccia,
Prof. Avian Evolution and world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina. Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms by V. Morell, Science 259(5096):764–65, 5 February 1993.

The above quote comes from a journal paper. Yours comes from a magazine, and in question to what creationist says...so which could be more accurate of his real opinions?

So what you are doing is technically called "Quote mining" and selectively reading, desperately trying to disprove my proofs. And still failing.

I still stand corrected since the original proposition by Osiris' Ra was that dinosaurs evolved into birds.


I never made the claim that Dr. Feducci disputes Evolution. This is the problem with specialization. That only those that look into the issue find faults with the details and miss the big picture.



The difference here is that Dr. Feducci is saying that Birds evolved from reptiles. Also he admits that this specimen is the Rossetta stone for Evolution. The whole theory rests on it. So he won't go against the grain and put it out right as a bird. Even though it is now clear that the skull of Archaeopteryx is totally Avian, no different than modern birds (Source)

So if not dinosaurs then what? What features of it would then make it reptilian? This is the next obvious question. Since this was the supposed link, and now ruled as NOT dinosaur, then there has to be some other specimen to link it reptilian.

Why are you slow witted goat?


Did you grin when read this in the interview:

So far, only one feathered dinosaur, Archaeoraptor, has been publicly acknowledged as a forgery. You think there are others?
Archaeoraptor is just the tip of the iceberg. There are scores of fake fossils out there, and they have cast a dark shadow over the whole field. When you go to these fossil shows, it's difficult to tell which ones are faked and which ones are not. I have heard that there is a fake-fossil factory in northeastern China, in Liaoning Province, near the deposits where many of these recent alleged feathered dinosaurs were found.

Journals like Nature don't require specimens to be authenticated, and the specimens immediately end up back in China, so nobody can examine them. They may be miraculous discoveries, they may be missing links as they are claimed, but there is no way to authenticate any of this stuff.

Why would anyone fake a fossil?
Money. The Chinese fossil trade has become a big business. These fossil forgeries have been sold on the black market for years now, for huge sums of money. Anyone who can produce a good fake stands to profit.

If there are good reasons to be skeptical, why are you perceived as being on the scientific fringe?
The idea of being able to watch living dinosaurs by looking out at the birds in your backyard bird feeder is very appealing. The popular press naturally jumped all over it. It's also a money game. Many museums have promoted the idea of birds being living dinosaurs, and they have spent huge amounts of money on exhibits about that link. Plus, some paleontologists have spent three decades saying that birds evolved from dinosaurs, so there are careers at stake. On the other hand, there is an army of people out there who do not buy into it. We are just not as vocal as the other side.

So does he have some stake in this great delusion. However, his study finds over whelming evidence in contradiction of the current "orthodox" view that dinosaurs evolved into birds.

it is even in your bible:

The fossil record indicates that birds evolved within theropod dinosaurs during the Jurassic period.

The evidence here shows that you deemed to be unquestionable proof - the fossil record - it self is disputed and even forged in most cases!

You have actually provided me with proof that the fossil record has forgeries in it!

I could have done that earlier, but I knew you'd dispute the source. But here you are bringing me the source to that claim! Wonderful! Excellent job!



Anyway...

how much more do I have to disprove.

Originally Midnight Sun aka Osiris aka DarkSun aka Lucifer, argued that evolution was 80% correct. At this point I have shown that it is 80% incorrect...I am only assuming that the other 20% we still haven't come to discuss yet.

First it was the tree of life. But we know that there are chunks of DNA shared between organisms that have divergent/different branches on this imaginary "Tree of life". If it were a tree than organisms would biochemically match along the branch. So to make up for it, the theory has to discard "The tree" analogy and consider it a web to accomadate the Horizontal "Transfer" of Genes (even though there is no explanation for how such transfer would occur.
Then it the absurd claims of what come first, the simple to complex, but the gaps were so large that Bal aka the Sabbatic Goat aka Mountain Goat, was overwhelmed to the point of exhaustion.

Let's talk about this:




Do you kids understand what this is?

This is Marvelous!
This is Genius!
This is so complex it boggles the mind. This is the most basic function of a cell. The Translation of Genes to Proteins.
Do you understand this goat? This is what you call simple. This happens in prokaryotes and eukaryotes. There is nothing simple about it. If you could appreciate the complexity of such a mechanism you would laugh at the mere thought of it happening spontaneously, even over trillions of years.


Can you do this Goat:


Just try it.
For my sake.

Maybe then when I say "the probability of a protein folding spontaneously is less than .00000000000001%" you will know what I mean:



I mean compared to the fact that a dragonfly spanning 2.5 feet wide flew around 200 million years ago, the question of the origin of birds is trivial!

Then you would argue with me on what what simplicity predated some complexity.

What can you appreciate of this fact:



this wateflea is half a centimeter barely and it has roughly 10,000 more genes than you!


And for 3 pages you kept arguing with me on what direct vs indirect evidence is ...strawman arguments.


Now you are walking around like an imbecile with quotes of mine in your signature ...letting everyone know how much I have perturbed you.

Keep posting those silly pictures ...it goes to show how silly you really are. A child has come to debate with me ... how amusing.

[ScimitarXEdge]

LOL it astonishes me that Alchemist persistently cites sources that he himself has no understanding of

when he does so he quote mines everything totally out of context

Alchemist is the Afghan VenomFangX lol

[طالب]

^ well kiddo...here is another quote of his saying the opposite:


"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that."

That's not the opposite.

I still stand corrected

You got that right.

So does he have some stake in this great delusion.

This is Marvelous!
This is Genius!
This is so complex it boggles the mind.

I'm usually chuckling when reading your posts, but this made me lol.

Is it a bird?!?
Is it a plane?!?
No it's Superman!

LOL it astonishes me that Alchemist persistently cites sources that he himself has no understanding of

when he does so he quote mines everything totally out of context

Alchemist is the Afghan VenomFangX lol

Yeah haha, but even VenomFangX didn't believe the Earth was flat. He just believed it was 6000 years old.

[Alchemist]

^ this is what it has come down to

denial

strawman

ad hominem


and cartoon pictures...

nice try kids...

[طالب]

Because of Alchemist's rantings throughout this forum, it might seem like evolution is very controversial and much debated.

It is important to make clear that this is not the case. Evolution is indeed an established fact. I've found a pretty good video that demonstrates just how established the theory is within the scientific community:

YouTube - List of Scientists Rejecting Evolution- Do they really?

[Alchemist]

What gives goat? i thought you said you already proved I am mad to eveyone so why worry about what I say? I could easily post videos to counter the above. But people hardly ever click on videos and no sane person would ever think a youtube poster is more credible than the next. You show how dogmatic you are by avoiding the criticism laid against your position and selectively finding material to reinforce your beliefs - this is the clinical definition of a delusion.

Here is something I wrote a while back that sort of describes your psychology.



This is not for contesting what Evolution is,but what it does for one inflected with delusions.


A scientific paper is composed of five parts: An introduction to the subject, a thorough description of the methods and procedures and devices used, an objective account of the observed data, a discussion on the interpretation of the data followed by a conclusion on the results of the experiments. When it comes to interpreting the data, a scientists must make the most out of what he can to discern and herein he will have to decide whether he has reached the null hypothesis or not. Sometimes you find some "artifacts" in your raw data and it doesn't "fit" into what you want it to, so you make some assumptions about the things that fall way off to make it more "reasonable". The way in which the article is written out for publication is not necessarily verbatim to the experiment conducted and each time it is submitted to a journal it is tailored to the specifications of the editors of the journal. The peers that review the paper for publication then have their own criteria upon which to judge the worthiness of the findings. Then what gives value to the paper is the number of times it is cited by other scientists in the respective field. In this way the systematic culmination of “objective” knowledge depends on the perspective of every scientist of that particular epoch and this is how we move from paradigm to paradigm.

To give you an idea for the “criteria” necessary I quote: "…the acceptance of knowledge in a community depends on several, approximately independent selection "criteria". The objective criteria are distinctiveness, invariance and controllability, the subjective ones are individual utility, coherence, simplicity and novelty, and the intersubjective ones are publicity, expressivity, formality, collective utility, conformity and authority. Science demarcates itself from other forms of knowledge by explicitly controlling for the objective criteria."

Neurologists studying the organization of knowledge in the human brain have found it to be compartmentalized into two: explicit and implicit (tacit) types of knowledge. But where one ends and the other begins poses a dilemma in that knowing-how and know that, respectively, are grossly interrelated.

"We must conclude that the paradigmatic case of scientific knowledge, in which all
faculties that are necessary for finding and holding scientific knowledge are fully developed, is the knowledge of approaching discovery.(tacit)
To hold such knowledge is an act deeply committed to the conviction that there is something there to be discovered. It is personal, in the sense of involving the personality of him who holds it, and also in the sense of being, as a rule, solitary; but there is no trace in it of self-indulgence. The discoverer is filled with a compelling sense of responsibility for the pursuit of a hidden truth, which demands his services for revealing it. His act of knowing exercises a personal judgement in relating evidence to an external reality, an aspect of which he is seeking to apprehend. (Polanyi 1967: 24-5)

Michael Polany argues that the elimination of the tacit, personal dimension will in essence destroy all objective knowledge, as it provides the perception and mental models that enable us to understand the whole of an entity. Scientists are human beings not machines.

"The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Causasian, and some ape as low as a babon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla" (Descent of Man, 1871)

Science is rooted in creative interpretation. Before the days of double-blind trials and the multiple regression analysis, the scientists prejudice were more difficult to control for. Now a days people are always curious to know whether you believe in evolution or not. Some want to call it fact others fiction...some theory others not. There are proponents for and against and there are all kinds of positions that you can take on the subject. One answer that I find works well with theists is: "I believe in microevolution but not macroevolution". In all the biology courses that I took, these terms were never brought up in any book it figures that this split is socially invented to meet the intersubjective criteria. Then if anything, this is an example of a theory's adaptability, and its propagation and as such a measure of its "fitness" through out the generations...a twisted play on words. Many take science to be "value-free" but I say its not. Social factors have been all too obvious in many of the results of so-called objective science; they have been uncovered as subtly operating in others and they are suspected of working somehow or other in all the rest. In 1980 the richest 1 percent of Americans owned 22% of the wealth of that nation. At the end of the Reagan and bush adminstrations a few years later, the richest 1% owned 42% of the wealth. In Canada during the last decade the number of children living in poverty tripled to 1.5 million. Science, no doubt, has done much to create this wealth.

Francis Galton, the cousin of darwin who coined the term "eugenics", believed that even the most socially embedded behaviours had strong innate components: "As many members of tour House of Lords marry the daughters of millionaires, it is quite conceivable that our Senate may in time become characterized by a more than common share of shrewd business capacity, possibly also by a lower standard of commercial probity than at present." Darwin after reading ‘Hereditary Genius’ wrote: "You have made a convert of an opponent in one sense, for I have always maintained that, excepting fools, men did not differ much in intellect, only in zeal and hard work, to which Galton replied "The rejoinder that might be made to his remark about hard work, is that character, including the aptitude of work, is heritable like every other faculty."

In 1906 a Virginia physician, Robert Bennet Bean “scientifically” compared brain anatomy to conclude: "The Negro is primarily affectionate, immensely emotional, then sensual and under stimulation passionate. There is love of ostentation, and capacity for melodious articulation; there is undeveloped artistic power and taste -- Negroes make good artisans, handicraftsmen -- and there is instability of character incident to lack of self-control, especially in connection with the sexual relation; and there is lack of orientation, or recognition of position and condition of self and enviornment, evidenced by a peculiar bumptiousness, so called, that is particularly noticeable. One would naturally expect some such character for the Negro, because the whole posterior part of the brain is large, and the whole anterior portion is small."

This is not to say that evolution was the cause of all this. Craniometric studies were conducted even before evolution (in the name of science) but after evolution it gained a higher ground on which to propound its claims.

Paul Broca, the man who discovered the speech area of the brain (now known as Broca's
area) measured the brain in every way possible to conclude: "In general, the brain is larger in mature adults than in the elderly, in men than in women, in eminent men than in men of mediocre talent, in superior race...other things equal there is remarkable relationship between the development of intelligence and the volume of the brain." (1861)

How do we know who deserves what role and function in our society? The coloured ones in ghettos and slums the morons in trailer trucks but you need not look far to see the implications of such a mind set especially when it is supported by science, which is uncontested for people like you and I.

G. Stanley Hall - not a crack pot, but America's premier psychologist -- invoked the higher suicide rates of women as a sign of their primitive evolutionary status (1904):
"This is one expression of a profound psychic difference between the sexes. Woman's body and soul is phyletically older and more primitive, while man is more modern, variable, and less conservative. Women are always inclined to preserve old customs and ways of thinking. Women prefer passive methods; to give themselves up to the power of elemental forces, as gravity, when they throw themselves from heights or take poison, in which methods of suicide they surpass man. Havelock Ellis thinks drowning is becoming more frequent, and that therein women are becoming more womenly."
A. F Chamerlain his disciple: "Without primitive peoples, the world at large would be much what in small it is without blessing of children"

This is still going on. Now man was a hunter in “evolutionary times” and the woman was a gatherer. He learned things like courage by going out in the wilderness with other males and learned to communicate and function as a team member…meanwhile the woman stayed at home and only ventured to gather for food and her brain developed so...you get the idea.

In 1890 American anthropologist D. G Brinton summarized:
"The adult who retains the more numerous fetal, infantile or simian traits, is unquestionably inferior to him whose development has progressed beyound them...measured by these criteria, the European or white race stands at the head of the list, the African or negro at its foot. ... All parts of the body have been minutely scanned, measured and weighed in order to erect a science of the comparative anatomy of the races"

Even today “evolutionary scientists” are looking for differences between the races and for the most part they find not much to show the gradation of intellect on a biological basis, at least you’d think it. But just Google J. Philippe Rushtom (still alive and teaches at 3.14265’s uni) who says preposterous things like - "the makeup of a gene pool affects the probability of any particular ideology being adopted."

Cesare Lombroso, the influential Italian physician, described the insight that led to his theory of innate criminality and to the profession he established - criminal anthropology. "the morning of a gloomy day in December," he examined the skull of Vihella: "This was not merely, an idea, but a flash of inspiration. At the sight of that skull, I seemed to see all of a sudden, lighted up as a vast plain under a flaming sky, the problem of the nature of the criminal -- an atavistic being who reproduces in his person the ferocious instincts of primitive humanity and the inferior animals. Thus were explained anatomically the enormous jaws, high cheek bones, prominent superciliary arches, solitary lines in the palms, extreme size of the orbits, handle-shaped ears found in criminals, savages and apes, insensibility to pain, extremely acute sight, tattooing excessive idleness, love of orgies, and the irresponsible craving of evil for its own sake, the desire not only to extinguish life in the victim, but to mutilate the corpse, tear its flesh and drink its blood…Atavism contributes to it more than anything else. They speak differently because they feel differently; they speak as savages because they are true savages in the midsts of our brilliant European civilization." (1887)

Believe it or not we are still looking for a “Criminal gene” just look it up on google news and you ll come up across countless claims of its discovery. Heard of that XYY theory in theory?

L. M Terman and his associates published a five volume series on Genetic Studies of Genius to study people that scored high on "IQ" tests:
"The evolution of modern industrial organization together with the mechanization of processes by machinery is making possible the larger and larger utilization of inferior mentality. One man with ability to think and plan guides the labor of ten or twenty laborers, who do what they are told to do and have little need for resourcefulness or initiative." (1919)

About 3 years ago the drop out rate for highschool in Ontario was 44%. I can only guess that it has gone higher ever since. That’s 1 out of 2 kids losing interest in school. Schools are not a place of education, they are more like prisons…This thing called IQ it does wonders for your ego.

Darwin’s theory of evolution (at least for the most part) fails to make any testable predictions. It provides wonderful explanations for how things came to be as they are, but it offers no novel predictions about the future (it does however make predictions about the past). Karl Popper was interested in the boundary between science and non science, his solution was simple: to be scientific is to be refutable (in principle). The falsifiablity principle distinguished science from non science but it couldn’t differentiate between good stuff and rubbish… at this point all Popper could do was classify evolution as a “metaphysical research programme”…and what distinguished the creationist from the Darwinist was simply --the critical spirit…the former lacked it the later had it.

There are many scientists (proponents for evolution) who say that evolution “stopped” about 50 000 years ago or so…don’t believe me? Just google it!

There is a war in science going on right now and I hope you are aware of it so that you don’t turn into a collateral damage by unwittingly participating in it. You are not compelled to take side so you don’t have to ever answer anyone on where you stand on this riddle called evolution …because chances are that the person who is asking you only does so to confirm the extent of their own delusion upon you ...truth is not measured by universal mass appeal…and you need not conform according to their choices of answers.

There is much more to this story and I am open to discuss further any aspect of what I have said.

[طالب]

I write this post in the hope that you, Timbaktu, are more reasonable than Alchemist. To that effect, I ask you to read this post and honestly answer the question I pose.

Mountain Goat is using "appeal to authority" argument, which is a fallacy. just because so and so scientists support evolution doesn't make it a fact.

That's not my point. The point is that if you were to read this forum you'd get the impression that the fact of evolution was heavily debated in the scientific community.

The reality is that it's not. 99.9% of scientists within the field of Biology believe in Evolution. In that sense it's an established fact in science.

But fact in science does not mean the same thing it does in everyday talk. When scientists claim that a theory, such as evolution, is fact they mean that there is a huge amount of evidence to support it. This does not mean that Evolution is 100% true, but then again, nothing in science is 100% true.

Its far from a fact, so I don't know why you are being so confident in your assertion.

The reason I am so confident, is because of the enormous amount of evidence we have to substantiate it. The absolute dishonest conduct of Creationists also makes me instantly step back from their claims.

Truth should be more important than which camp you belong to, so I hope this discussion is carried out in that manner.

Well the "camps" only really exist in the public. In the scientific community there is only one camp, evolution. Unless you regard 0.003% as a camp.

But I agree that truth is important. But what constitutes truth? Do you accept material evidence as truth?

This is an important question and I want you to answer it honestly. Because if you do not accept material evidence, then there is no debate to be had. You can't be reasoned with.

This is the case with Alchemist. Alchemist believes, for example, that the Earth is flat. He believes the Earth is flat because he believes that the Quran says so. This shows that Alchemist does not accept material evidence because we have photos from space of Earth which clearly show that it is round.

Now if I show him a photo of a spherical Earth, he will not accept it. He will claim that it is a forgery, a fake. In other words, no matter how obvious the material evidence is, he will never accept it as truth, because he has a religious belief that the Earth is flat. This would apply to Evolution as well. We can show him all the evidence in the world and he will still deny it, because it goes against his religious beliefs.

So that's why my question is so important, Timbaktu. If you accept material evidence, then we can talk and discuss the issue. If you do not, then there is no debate to be had because there is no firm ground on which we can base our arguments.

Again, I've written this post in the hope that you'll come up with an honest answer and not go off on a tangent which Alchemist has done every time we've brought this up.