Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

Your team was the first to find skeletons linking whales to land mammals. Does the fossil record to date indicate a rapid change from land to sea?

Gingerich: Whales have not been collected on a fine enough time scale to see rapid change. This will be revealed through more fieldwork. So far we have fossils illustrating three or four steps that bridge the precursor of whales to today’s mammals.
Whales share a common ancestor with hippos.
Fossils document biological change through geological time. The fossil record, of course, is supported by molecular and other studies showing that whales share a common ancestor with four-footed, hoofed mammals such as cows and hippos. Their evolution is particularly interesting because early vertebrates came from the sea to live on land, and whales then returned to an aquatic life.
My research focuses on archaeocetes, or “archaic” whales that were the ones that evolved from land. We find whale fossils from the Eocene epoch, which lasted from about 54.8 to 33.7 million years ago [mya]. These include:
Archaic whales lived between 54.8 and 33.7 million years ago.

• complete skeletons of middle-to-late Eocene Basilosauridae (e.g., Dorudon and Basilosaurus) that were the first known to retain hand limbs, feet, and toes
• exceptionally complete skeletons of middle Eocene Protocetidae (e.g., Rodhocetus and Artiocetus) that connect whales to an artiodactyl ancestry
• a partial skull of earliest middle Eocene Pakicetidae (the Pakicetus) that was at the time the first skull of the oldest known whale

What are some of the key discoveries about whale history?

The earliest whales were semi-aquatic.
Gingerich: The oldest whale fossil, Himalayacetus, was found in India in Eocene marine strata, indicating it was about 53 million years old. It has the misfortune of being represented only by a lower jaw with two teeth in it. It shows one interesting characteristic: It doesn’t yet exhibit the enlarged mandibular canal later linked to hearing in water. That happens soon afterward. Another interesting characteristic is that this fossil is found in marine rocks. This puts other whale fossils that were contemporaries, such as those of the riverine Pakicetus, in perspective. All of the earliest whales that we know about so far were semi-aquatic. I am sure that they were still coming on land to give birth, to rest, and to mate, very much like modern sea lions.
They used their webbed feet for swimming.
Other fossil examples provide additional evidence. For example, nearly complete skeletons of Rodhocetus and Artiocetus from the early middle Eocene represent foot-powered swimmers with large webbed feet. We now have a complete skeleton of Rodhocetus. It’s an important find because it illustrates and allows us to quantify the whale’s transition from land to water. The proportions of Rodhocetus ’ limbs, skull, neck, and thorax indicate it was a foot-powered swimmer. It would take subsequent generations to evolve into tail-powered swimmers. By the mid- to late Eocene, ancient whales such as the Dorudon were swimming like the whales of today, using their tail.
They later swam using their tails and diverged.
At the close of the Eocene, or early in the next epoch, the Oligocene [33.7 to 23.8 mya], the archaic whale lineage began to divide into two groups leading to the toothed whales and the baleen whales, and these in turn evolved into the wonderful whale diversity we see today.
What have we learned so far from whale fossils?

Gingerich: Whale fossil finds enable us to document the evolutionary history of whales, a history we were postulating from theory before:
Whale fossils show that evolution is opportunistic.

• Whales are warm-blooded mammals that evolved backwards, from land to sea, which shows that evolution can go both ways; it is opportunistic, not deterministic.
• It hasn’t been a smooth transition for whales. There is a stage between specialized foot-powered swimmers like Rodhocetus and modern whales: the stage of tail-powered swimmers like Dorudon that still retain vestigial hind limbs.
• Modern whales that are carnivorous today evolved from ancient artiodactyls [the mammalian order including cows, deer, hippos, etc.] that were plant eaters. It’s an interesting change in feeding strategy, from eating plants to eating animals.

Philip Gingerich is the Ermine Cowles Case Collegiate Professor of Paleontology; professor of geological sciences, biology, and anthropology; and director of the Museum of Paleontology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. His research team was the first to find skeletons linking whales to artiodactyl land mammals. Gingerich was interviewed at the evolution symposium presented at the 2006 National Association of Biology Teachers annual conference, co-sponsored by the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center, and the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study publishing house.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric

 

Extraterrestial Professor of Earthology Mr Tall Tales: During recent expedition of our astronauts to planet Earth they have found the fragment of a gas stove, right next to what appears to be a tire of a vehicle, and also a piece of human bone. There are some major similarities as all objects we found consist of atoms. All presumed to be 600 million years old.

Interviewer aka Mr. Smallhead Large-Eyes What does it tell you, Mr. Tall Tales?

Mr Tall Tales: Well, it tells us that vehicles have evolved from gas stoves by means of random chance and natural selection. It also tells us that so called humans, although not direct descendants of gas stoves or vehicles, were surely cousins of both.

Mr Smallhead: Mr Tall Tales, but what about some of more sceptical minds who question that you have any evidence of transitional fossils to prove that vehicles indeed evolved out of gas stoves? What about evid....

Mr Tall Tales: Oh, those must be dismissed and ignored as if never existed. We don't really need to pay any attention if some lunies may object to such a superbly plausible theory as I present to you, no matter how plausible their objection may be.

Mr Smallhead : Thank you Mr Tall Tales, this was great, exciting and very convincing revelation !!!!!!!!

Mr Tall Tales : Oh, sure, anytime (Rubbing hands together in a glee).

 

Note the UNDERLINED AND HIGHLIGHTED part of the quote below


(see full article here:
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=381132&page=29 post # 287)



Fossils

Coyne turns first to the fossil record. “We should be able,” he writes, “to find some evidence for evolutionary change in the fossil record. The deepest (and oldest) layers of rock would contain the fossils of more primitive species, and some fossils should become more complex as the layers of rock become younger, with organisms resembling present-day species found in the most recent layers. And we should be able to see some species changing over time, forming lineages showing ‘descent with modification’ (adaptation).” In particular, “later species should have traits that make them look like the descendants of earlier ones.”5

In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin acknowledged that the fossil record presented difficulties for his theory. “By the theory of natural selection,” he wrote, “all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the natural and domestic varieties of the same species at the present day.” Thus in the past “the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great.” But Darwin knew that the major animal groups—which modern biologists call “phyla”—appeared fully formed in what were at the time the earliest known fossil-bearing rocks, deposited during a geological period known as the Cambrian. He considered this a “serious” difficulty for his theory, since “if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed… and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures.” And “to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” So “the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”6

Darwin defended his theory by citing the imperfection of the geological record. In particular, he argued that Precambrian fossils had been destroyed by heat, pressure, and erosion. Some of Darwin’s modern followers have likewise argued that Precambrian fossils existed but were later destroyed, or that Precambrian organisms were too small or too soft to have fossilized in the first place. Since 1859, however, paleontologists have discovered many Precambrian fossils, many of them microscopic or soft-bodied. As American paleobiologist William Schopf wrote in 1994, “The long-held notion that Precambrian organisms must have been too small or too delicate to have been preserved in geological materials… [is] now recognized as incorrect.” If anything, the abrupt appearance of the major animal phyla about 540 million years ago—which modern biologists call “the Cambrian explosion” or “biology’s Big Bang”—is better documented now than in Darwin’s time. According to Berkeley paleontologist James Valentine and his colleagues, the “explosion is real, it is too big to be masked by flaws in the fossil record.” Indeed, as more fossils are discovered it becomes clear that the Cambrian explosion was “even more abrupt and extensive than previously envisioned.”7

What does Coyne’s book have to say about this?

“Around 600 million years ago,” Coyne writes, “a whole gamut of relatively simple but multicelled organisms arise, including worms, jellyfish, and sponges. These groups diversify over the next several million years, with terrestrial plants and tetrapods (four-legged animals, the earliest of which were lobe-finned fish) appearing about 400 million years ago.”8

In other words, Coyne’s account of evolutionary history jumps from 600 to 400 million years ago without mentioning the 540 million year-old Cambrian explosion. In this respect, Coyne’s book reads like a modern biology textbook that has been written to indoctrinate students in Darwinian evolution rather than provide them with the facts.

Coyne goes on to discuss several “transitional” forms. “One of our best examples of an evolutionary transition,” he writes, is the fossil record of whales, “since we have a chronologically ordered series of fossils, perhaps a lineage of ancestors and descendants, showing their movement from land to water.”9

“The sequence begins,” Coyne writes, “with the recently discovered fossil of a close relative of whales, a raccoon-sized animal called Indohyus. Living 48 million years ago, Indohyus was… probably very close to what the whale ancestor looked like.” In the next paragraph, Coyne writes, “Indohyus was not the ancestor of whales, but was almost certainly its cousin. But if we go back 4 million more years, to 52 million years ago, we see what might well be that ancestor. It is a fossil skull from a wolf-sized creature called Pakicetus, which is bit more whalelike than Indohyus.” On the page separating these two paragraphs is a figure captioned “Transitional forms in the evolution of modern whales,” which shows Indohyus as the first in the series and Pakicetus as the second.10

But Pakicetus—as Coyne just told us—is 4 million years older than Indohyus. To a Darwinist, this doesn’t matter: Pakicetus is “more whalelike” than Indohyus, so it must fall between Indohyus and modern whales, regardless of the fossil evidence.

(Coyne performs the same trick with fossils that are supposedly ancestral to modern birds. The textbook icon Archaeopteryx, with feathered wings like a modern bird but teeth and a tail like a reptile, is dated at 145 million years. But what Coyne calls the “nonflying feathered dinosaur fossils”—which should have come before Archaeopteryx—are tens of millions of years younger. Like Darwinists Kevin Padian and Luis Chiappe eleven years earlier, Coyne simply rearranges the evidence to fit Darwinian theory.)11

So much for Coyne’s prediction that “later species should have traits that make them look like the descendants of earlier ones.” And so much for his argument that “if evolution were not true, fossils would not occur in an order that makes evolutionary sense.” Ignoring the facts he himself has just presented, Coyne brazenly concludes: “When we find transitional forms, they occur in the fossil record precisely where they should.” If Coyne’s book were turned into a movie, this scene might feature Chico Marx saying, “Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?”12

There is another problem with the whale series (and every other series of fossils) that Coyne fails to address: No species in the series could possibly be the ancestor of any other, because all of them possess characteristics they would first have to lose before evolving into a subsequent form. This is why the scientific literature typically shows each species branching off a supposed lineage.

In the figure below, all the lines are hypothetical. The diagram on the left is a representation of evolutionary theory: Species A is ancestral to B, which is ancestral to C, which is ancestral to D, which is ancestral to E. But the diagram on the right is a better representation of the evidence: Species A, B, C and D are not in the actual lineage leading to E, which remains unknown.





It turns out that no series of fossils can provide evidence for Darwinian descent with modification. Even in the case of living species, buried remains cannot generally be used to establish ancestor-descendant relationships. Imagine finding two human skeletons in the same grave, one about thirty years older than the other. Was the older individual the parent of the younger? Without written genealogical records and identifying marks (or in some cases DNA), it is impossible to answer the question. And in this case we would be dealing with two skeletons from the same species that are only a generation apart and from the same location. With fossils from different species that are now extinct, and widely separated in time and space, there is no way to establish that one is the ancestor of another—no matter how many transitional fossils we find.

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”13 Nature science writer Henry Gee wrote in 1999 that “no fossil is buried with its birth certificate.” When we call new fossil discoveries “missing links,” it is “as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices.” Gee concluded: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”14


5 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 17-18, 25.
6 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Sixth Edition (London: John Murray, 1872), Chapter X, pp. 266, 285-288. Available online (2009) here.
7 J. William Schopf, “The early evolution of life: solution to Darwin’s dilemma,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9 (1994): 375-377.
James W. Valentine, Stanley M. Awramik, Philip W. Signor & M. Sadler, “The Biological Explosion at the Precambrian-Cambrian Boundary,” Evolutionary Biology 25 (1991): 279-356.
James W. Valentine & Douglas H. Erwin, “Interpreting Great Developmental Experiments: The Fossil Record,” pp. 71-107 in Rudolf A. Raff & Elizabeth C. Raff, (editors), Development as an Evolutionary Process (New York: Alan R. Liss, 1987).
Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Big Bang of Animal Evolution,” Scientific American 267 (November, 1992): 84-91.
“The Scientific Controversy Over the Cambrian Explosion,” Discovery Institute. Available online (2009) here.
Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2002), Chapter 3. More information available online (2009) here.
Stephen C. Meyer, “The Cambrian Explosion: Biology’s Big Bang,” pp. 323-402 in John Angus Campbell & Stephen C. Meyer (editors), Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 2003). More information available online (2009) here.
8 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, p. 28.

9 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, p. 48.
10 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 49-51.
11 Kevin Padian & Luis M. Chiappe, “The origin and early evolution of birds,” Biological Reviews 73 (1998): 1-42. Available online (2009) here.
Wells, Icons of Evolution, pp. 119-122.
12 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 25, 53.
Chico Marx in Duck Soup (Paramount Pictures, 1933). This and other Marx Brothers quotations are available online (2009) here.
13 Gareth Nelson, “Presentation to the American Museum of Natural History (1969),” in David M. Williams & Malte C. Ebach, “The reform of palaeontology and the rise of biogeography—25 years after 'ontogeny, phylogeny, palaeontology and the biogenetic law' (Nelson, 1978),” Journal of Biogeography 31 (2004): 685-712.
14 Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time. New York: Free Press, 1999, pp. 5, 32, 113-117.
Jonathan Wells, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2006). More information available online (2009) here.

 

Yes, and that's a record. The extensive quotation against evolution repeated over and over by another poster comes from a Creationist website notorious for disseminating disinformation. For example, Professor Gareth Nelson, former Curator of icthyology at the American Museum of Natural history, is neither a creationist nor a disbeliever in Darwin, but is champion of a controversial theory of fossil classification. His comments on fossils and whales reflects that view, was related to a technical issue, and is by no means accepted by others in the field.

 

Mr Tall Tales, we see someone who makes very plausible , coherent argument and presents relevant evidence to show that what you tell is unsupported by available data when you claim that vehicles have evolved out of gas stoves by means of random chance and natural selection and that humans are cousins of both gas stoves and vehicles.

Mr Tall Tales: This is nonsense !

Why, Mr Tall Tales?

Mr Tall Tales: Because that person also claims somewhere else that tomatoes are blue

But Mr Tall Tales, what relevance is there of blue tomatoes to the facts that he cited?

Mr Tall Tales: Well, because what matters is who disputes the claim and what else they claim in some other context.
It doesn't really matter if my own claim is valid in the first place.

For instance, if Baron Munchausen claimed that he could fly to the Moon on cannonball and if 5 years old humanoid who believes in Jupiter Claus said Baron Munchausen couldn't possibly have flown to the Moon on cannonball, what would follow then?
Well , here is what: mere fact that it was such a little humanoid who also believed in Jupiter Claus who was disputing the most credible Baron Munchausen's feat, this alone would automatically validate Munchausen's claim that he indeed flew to the Moon on cannonball. All the other facts and considerations notwithstanding.

But isn't it ad humanoidem argument, Mr Tall Tales?

Mr Tall Tales: But that's irrelevant' as long as I wish and say so , because I am Mr Tall Tales!

That's brilliant, Mr Tall Tales!

Mr Tall Tales: Of course ! What else did you expect from me?

 

This suggests that Gee would support the thesis that the theory of evolution is not scientifically valid. However, Gee seems to disagree with that interpretation. Gee writes:"Darwinian evolution by natural selection is a theory in the formal sense that it is a hypothesis that has been tested, repeatedly, and found to be consistent with all the evidence that we can throw at it. Much of this evidence, from the fossil record and from genetics, did not exist in Darwin’s time, and it is a testament to Darwin’s prescience and the elegance of his theory of evolution by natural selection that it has proved so robust, so all-encompassing, so right." Hmmmm.

See also Gee's glowing tribute to Darwin in the introduction to a series of commemorative articles on the anniversary of the theory of evolution:
Nature 457, 807 (12 February 2009)

EditorialEvolution

Henry Gee1 & Rory Howlett2

Online collection.

"The articles in this Insight testify to the success of Charles Darwin's theory of descent with modification by means of natural selection, carefully detailed in his book On the Origin of Species almost 150 years ago. The most striking aspect of the theory is its simplicity. Given heritable variation, a superabundance of offspring, and environmental change, natural selection must happen, and evolution will follow. The natural world can be explained without invoking pre-existing germs, essential life forces, the great chain of being, Ptolemaic epicycles or a prime mover.
This simplicity has meant that the theory has always accommodated new discoveries — the general theme of this Insight. In Darwin's day, nothing was known about genetics or the mathematical basis of natural selection. But such discoveries have only made the theory stronger.
Simplicity also makes for longevity. The theory of natural selection has had its ups and downs, but today we are not celebrating, for example, the 280th anniversary of the birth of the great experimental scientist Lazzaro Spallanzani. Why not? He saw in his results confirmation of the theory of preformation: that the essence of organisms is stamped in the egg, and all that is needed is for the pre-existing germ to unfold. This theory died with Spallanzani, overcome by better observation — and by a theory with no preconditions. No one subscribes to the theory of preformation now, whereas natural selection continues to evolve.
To be sure, Darwin's first ideas now seem dated, but he winnowed them over decades, stripping them of any archaic clutter to reveal a modern clarity of purpose on which biologists have continued to build.
So, as we toast the bicentenary of Darwin's birth today, we can be sure that Darwin's name will be familiar to our descendants (however modified) for centuries to come, whereas those of Spallanzani and many others — so great in their day — will succumb to the inevitable flip side of evolution: extinction."

Another misleading quotation in the article you keep quoting concerns a statement by Gareth Nelson:
In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”

Nelson, presented as a critic of Darwin, is nothing of the sort. Like Gee, he is an advocate of a controversial approach to fossil classification or taxonomy called cladistics, which does point out gaps in the fossil evidence and is reluctant to extrapolate from a limited number of finds that may not be representative of the whole. Cladistics is not yet a majority view, and it is a far cry from saying there is no evidentiary basis for evolution. The quotation presented as an attack on evolution was addressing a somewhat technical issue of classification terminology. This is another example of the creationist/ID camp seizing on any difference on technical matters between scientists to discredit evolution. Nelson has been a critic of Philip Johnson, the founder of Intelligent Design, for suggesting that Dawinists are dogmatic. Nelson G., "Responses to Phillip Johnson," in "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," [First Things, November 1990], Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, 1990.

Now what's that you were saying about Munchausen?

 

So you would agree that a new species was created by polyploidy which proves macroevolution happens in plant species?

 

This is like trying to discredit the theory of relativity by accusing Einstein of mispelling words. lol. Out of all the fossils found in the first 600 million years of the record not one has been complex. All it would take is for some complex lifeform such as a mammal to be found in this time frame and I would be the first to admit that evolution is false.

 

We've been reading the recycled attack on Jerry Coyne quite a lot lately. The author of the piece is Jonathan Wells, a Moonie who was convinced by the teachings of Rev. Sun Myong Moon and the Unification Church to devote his life to "destroying Darwinism", for which purpose he earned a Ph.D. He doesn't so much do science as he does anti-Darwin. His book Icons of Evolution received a scathing review by the eminent evolutionist, Jerry Coyne, among others, who accused him of misquoting people and taking minor issues out of context. In the article to which Mr. Jumboli has treated us so many times, he appears to be returning the favor to Coyne, whom he views as a personal enemy. But he's been taken under the wing of the Discovery Institute, bastion of ID,which defends him against his critics. I've already given a couple of instances showing his misrepresentation of authorities whom he quotes, in the very passage put forward by Jumbuli. He's alos put forward the view, against the weight of medical authority, that HIV causes AIDS. So I'm not convinced his "facts" and arguments can be trusted.

 

:rofl:

 

I am pointing out that record keeping is a human activity, not a geologic one. That there is evidence of current, or direction, of flow acknowledges the information provided by okiefreak. An event, passed or future, is an indefinite parameter. Current events are observable. The event of distinct species belies the transitional nature of all forms. This is not an exercise in word play.
The way we parse these things greatly influences the way in which we consider them as in, my best friend waxed my girlfriend, or my best friend waxed on and on about my girlfriend. We suggest to ourselves that life appears at such and such a point as though a new law of physics had appeared just then. This gives us the impression that survivability is dependent upon conformity to this new law, fitness.
Multiplication is exponential growth. A fish may lay a thousand eggs of which ten may survive to maturity. From the fitness perspective we get the idea that success is a crap shot and that nine hundred ninety eggs had been misfires. From the perspective of exponential growth every egg suits the purpose exactly. The more remote the probability the greater the rate of success. From this perspective any level of mutation supports the evolutionary model in the same way that Jumbuli is assured of, "winning", by maintaining the ambiguous position that he doesn't have to prove anything. Natures thrust may not be toward the perfection of form, from simple species to more advanced, to be best suited, but to make more of itself, an expanding universe. From this perspective, a changing environment is not at emnity with the creatures that live in it and there is no struggle to survive. From this perspective life is not a serendipitous event, but guaranteed. You can't get rid of the stuff.

 

Your profile doesn't mention anything about your science education. Since your opinions are so strong, can you tell us?

 

The problem here is that you creationist- and that's what you are no matter what label you hide behind - think that citing a few dissenting opinions among scientist somehow validates your mythology.
but it's a double standard.
Millions of religious fanatics have repudiated god. Does that prove god is not a valid religious theory? by your reasoning it does.

"Evolution is a working theory that explains many aspects of the diversity of life. "
A tall tale? But a magic man in the sky is valid? Your attempts to rationalize your belief as valid has blinded you to the light of reality.

Let' get this straght, too. "Darwinism" is a ad hoc term made up by creationist in an attempt to brng Science down to the level of religion. There is no "Darwinism", except among creationist.

"All the Universe evolves from the simple to the complex- then falls victim to entropy. There is no reason to believe that humans are exempt"
"Just because you say so doesn't mean it is so."-- Now THAT's a scientific argument!

Ah, But It IS SO. You might find a little research quite enlighting. Cutting and pasting is all very fine...
But you're just blindingly citing some one else's opinion because it tends to back your own justifaction. What can you say of your own understanding?
I can outline creation from the begining to the present day. It begins with the Evolution of Nothing into Something...

In any case, bio-evolution stands accepted by the legit Science Community. It is a FACT. it begins at the begining a continues on. No magic, or people needed. This thread is non-sequiter.

I prayed for world peace,
So did billions of others.
The answer was war.
I guess that proves there's no god.

 

[QUOTE=geckopelli;5969865]


This thread is non-sequiter.

I prayed for world peace,
So did billions of others.
The answer was war.
I guess that proves there's no god.[/QUOTE]

But then we would miss your eloquence. Be vigilant only for the truth.

 

Evolution must be valid scientifically, how else could you prove Steve Tyler?

But on a serious note, the chromosomes don't add up. I know it has probably been mentioned a million times over here, but since when has any other species changed it genetic make up in such a way? Never. So why would a monkeys to make a human?

Occam's Razor, the simplest answer is usually the correct one. I do think it was just as black and white as saying one day there were monkeys, and one day there were Humans.

Unless you have seen the odd turtle-toise knockin' around the place?

 

For a starter, if you are referring to Jumbuli, he's said on many occasions that he is not a Creationist. I don't think he even believes in God. He just does not believe in evolution either.
I'm not quoting the rest of your post because it draws along the same line. But it's useless against Jumbuli, he is not a Christian. He does not believe in Creation. End of.

The problem with war is, it is a very human part of us all. No matter how hard you pray or how much you will for peace, it simply will not happen. I don't think this has anything to do with God's existence, unless you expect Him to poke through the clouds at any sign of trouble and fix every little thing for us. But this would make the idea of free will worthless.

 

First of all you tell lies.

To be Creationist I must insist or claim that this Universe was in some form brought into existence by a supernatural being or beings, commonly a single deity.

Instead I insist that I don't know how this whole thing came to be.

Neither do you KNOW, be you Creationist or Darwinist.
Anyone of you who claims to know something without nothing more to show but a feeling of it being so are indeed following a Religious Doctrine.

Just because, as a hoax perpetrating Darwinist, you call your Doctrine to be Scientific doesn't mean it is so.
Baseless assertion in absence of relevant evidence and plausible argument can hardly serve as proof of your claim.

Calling me "Creationist" (while you have nothing but yet another baseless assertion to say so) and accusing me of "hiding" behind anything is entertaining and amusing way to spin things around, only it is not true.

What "mythology" is that?
Let's figure this out first: who is the one who propagates mythology here?
I certainly don't subscribe to any, neither Biblical nor Darwinian.
Can you say the same about yourself?

What and where is the double standard?
Be specific.
Telling lies and calling me things you do won't put me in defensive.

That's too primitive way to argue in favor of scientific theory, btw, don't you think?

I was not talking about God at all in any of my posts concerning evolution. But you seem to be fixated on God while ignoring necessity to prove your claim that Religious Theory of Darwin has anything to do with Science.

As to your statement, it's illogical and meaningless.

Millions of religious fanatics have repudiated Zeus. Does that prove that Zeus is not valid theory? By your resoning it does.

What kind of imbecilic statement is that? Who said such a thing?

Of course Mr Tall Tale, it is so because you say so

What else do you call baseless assertion with bunch of fraudulently and arbitrarily drawn conjectures?

I never said anything of magic man in the sky being valid.
You must be really delusional if you believe I ever did say so and I am afraid there is nothing I can do to fix this delusion in your head.

I can only reiterate that never did I claim to know how species came to be what they are.
Claiming not to know something is not the same thing as claiming there a magic man in the sky.


But claiming that UFO is definitely a rocket because it can't be anything else and that it flies on kerosene merely because it can't fly on horsepoop , and that is a valid scientific theory because anyone who doubts you must believe instead that magic man in the sky is a valid theory ,well, that's a whole different story

What "belief"? Please specify for me my beliefs and copy-paste a single quote where I stated to believe it.

How come saying "I don't know" qualifies me as blind believer while your overzealous and delusional Faith that Darwin's Religious Theory of Evolution has anything to do with Science is indeed Scientific? How so? What did you present but baseless assertion?

Even Okeiefreak (who has chronic disease of ad hominem arguments employed instead of rational ones) did better this time than you (and I will address his points later).

1. No matter what you call a Ptolemaic Model of Astronomy, it basically has one fundamental premise: Earth is the center of Universe and all planets and stars rotate around it.

You can synthesise it any way you like and you may join flat Earth society and incorporate it into their theory, but it won't change the basic premise of the original theory.

2. If Creationists , among others, decided one day to also dispute Ptolemaic Astronomy, it wouldn't validate Ptolemaic Astronomy merely because Creationists joined the dispute and had some scientifically invalid points of their own.


Likewise, no matter what you call the modern theory of evolution, it's fundamental premise is that most complex life evolved out of most primitive singe cell by means of random chance and natural selection.
That premise is laid down by Charles Darwin.
No modern evolutionary biologist (no matter what they call themselves) refute it.

And it's completely irrelevant to me who else disputes Darwin's Theory, whether it's Creationists or believers in Santa Claus , it's totally irrelevant to the fact that Darwin's Religious Thoery has nothing to do with Science.

Right, and I am glad that sometimes even in the darkest state of madness there is a glimpse of light, as evidenced by your lipservice to what constitutes a scientific argument.

WHy don't you share with us some of that enlightening research?

Aha, madness is progressing

Let's talk about Darwinism. Leave Creation to some other thread.

Perfect! It's proven because it's proven and it's a fact because it's a fact and because you say so.

Somebody mentioned of agreeing with something said about scientifiic argument before

It's a poetry. And one which is irrelevant to subject matter.

 

I grew up in Bantam Village, Cocos Islands.
No formal schooling at all (not even a day of my life spent in school).
My science education was watching satellite TV and reading a few books along the way.

 

No, it's not really so.

If Einstein said "I was born in year 1879 and 32 years prior to that in the year 1956 my father was born who thus proved Theory of Relativity to be true" and if such a thing was incorporated into texbook teaching Relativity Theory in college you would hardly say it's just a misspelling

 

Jumbuli says, " it's a poetry, and one which is irrelevant to subject matter". He also says it is so because he says so.