Professor challenges evolution (Pittsburgh Professor's article in The New Anatomist)

Pittnews.com ^ | 02/09/2006 | NAN AMA SARFO

[webstersII]

"and is proved by the observation that no two of the 6.7 billion people that exist on earth are a exact duplicate"

Offering facts not in evidence. You have no way of determining that this is the case; it is merely an idea. There is no way to test or falsify the statement you made.

[RunningWolf]

You are really into some nasty cruel painful imagery aren't you?

Well it bears repeating then

The only points you make with image or words, is that you are neither a scientist nor a historian, or if you are.., a poor showing for them in the cause of evo.

Darwinistic-Evo cultism.., a pseudo-science, another rivulet of humanity run into the desert of illusion. It is a powerful illusion that has seduced many a mind.

Defend darwinistic-cvo cultism with all the rabid vitriol you can spew up. In the end it will help define the cult itself.

Wolf

[CarolinaGuitarman]

You prove my case with every post you make Mordo. :)

[jec41]

Offering facts not in evidence. You have no way of determining that this is the case; it is merely an idea. There is no way to test or falsify the statement you made.It has already been tested by DNA. No two possess the same DNA except identical twins, identical triplets, etc. They are of the same reproduction and egg and even they differ upon examination in such physical things as height, weight, finger length, mouth width and ears. The differences may be slight but they exist. DNA is used to test for idenity because no two are the same of different reproduction.

[AndrewC]

Schwartz concludes, “we can appreciate why ‘missing links’ are so elusive in the fossil record.

They probably did not exist.”

Placemarker

[jec41]

Schwartz concludes, “we can appreciate why ‘missing links’ are so elusive in the fossil record. They probably did not exist.”

Its possible that many may not exist. If one engages in interbreeding or incest and the offspring arrives with six fingers there is no missing link between offspring and parent but the change is evident.

[GLDNGUN]

yes and this latest junk science is recyled punctuated equilibria.......this has as many scientific problems as Darwin's explanation

I know. The evos love to say how "solid" a scientific "theory" really is and us do-dos just don't understand. Comparing the "theory" of gravity to evolution is ludicrous. Drop an apple and you'll see gravity in action. Gravity itself is not a theory but an observable reality. Exactly how gravity works is open to theory. Evolution, on the other hand, specifically MACRO-evolution IS a theory. We can not observe this type in action, as we can gravity. Of course, the evos demand evolution is fact and that there are few unanswered questions. This article proves otherwise. It shows that while the evos firmly believe in evolution, HOW we got from point A to point B is NOT firm.

Ultimately, they are open to just about any theory that shows we got from point A to point B, as long as God or intelligent design is not involved. Of course, the problem there is, that if God/Intelligent Design IS involved, they are purposefully avoiding the truth.

It's like the guy who walked out of a bar and observed some smokers hanging around the entrance, puffing away. Across the street he saw a friend on all fours looking around for something. He went over to his friend to see what was going on. His friend explained he dropped his wallet when he walked out of the bar and someone bumped into him, and now he was trying to find it. So the guy says to him "if you dropped your wallet walking out of the bar, why are you on the other side of the street looking for it?" His friend replied, "well, I don't like to be around all those smokers".

Another way of looking at it, would be to come up on a log cabin in the woods and devising the most plausible explanation for the cabin's existence WITHOUT taking intelligent design and construction into consideration. After all, you didn't observe it being built, so it must have been the result of "chance and time" interacting with falling trees. You know, like the idiot who said given enough time, a monkey hammering away at a typewriter would eventually type the 23rd Psalm perfectly. Uh-huh.

[Right Wing Professor]

No, sorry.

Law: well established regularity in nature

Theory: well established fundamental explanation for said regularity.

Now go forth and sin no more.

[Right Wing Professor]

Wrong genealogical problem. Mine is between Genesis and Luke, not between luke and Matthew.

There are two possible explanations (1) somebody made a mistake (2) some truly bizarre incestuous relationships. Only an a priori assumption of infallibility precludes one from choosing the simple and obvious explanation (1).

[jec41]

I know. The evos love to say how "solid" a scientific "theory" really is and us do-dos just don't understand. Comparing the "theory" of gravity to evolution is ludicrous. Drop an apple and you'll see gravity in action. Gravity itself is not a theory but an observable reality. Exactly how gravity works is open to theory. Evolution, on the other hand, specifically MACRO-evolution IS a theory. We can not observe this type in action, as we can gravity. Of course, the evos demand evolution is fact and that there are few unanswered questions. This article proves otherwise. It shows that while the evos firmly believe in evolution, HOW we got from point A to point B is NOT firm.

Evolution is but change. Incest is prohibited because observably changes can occur. Engaging in interbreeding or incest and having the offspring arrive with six fingers is a observable reality.

[AndrewC]

If one engages in interbreeding or incest and the offspring arrives with six fingers there is no missing link between offspring and parent but the change is evident.

Well, I suppose one can consider that situation as equivalent to a thalidomide baby. The offspring is not a new species. I think "missing link" is meant in that context.

[csense]

..another clueless evolution advocate who can't understand a simple argument. What else is new.

[jec41]

Well, I suppose one can consider that situation as equivalent to a thalidomide baby. The offspring is not a new species. I think "missing link" is meant in that context.

Most would ascribe to missing link as that evidence that is missing or not found between species or large change in a species while ignoring small change that occur frequently. As late as the 1700's and 1800's the Catholic church had yet to recognize some Indians of Mexico as human and they were designated animals. When recognized human was there a significant change or was their denial simply thought because they noticed differences.

[TheBrotherhood]

>If one lacks logic or reasoning their opinion can be anything except logic or reasoning.

If one is set in their own agenda, like the darwinists, don't expect others to agree and conform to it.

[jec41]

another clueless evolution advocate who can't understand a simple argument. What else is new.

Simple argument is for those of simple thought. Furthermore argument is of philosophy and would seek to prove or disprove (faith, belief, or the unknown) without evidence, empirical evidence or material fact but by argument, debate, and deduction. Evolution is of science which is composed of facts and evidence. It is a sad day when one would argue his philosophy without knowledge of the differences in philosophy, science and mathematics for only agenda. It is a detriment to self and reveals deficiencies.

[AndrewC]

Most would ascribe to missing link as that evidence that is missing or not found between species or large change in a species while ignoring small change that occur frequently. As late as the 1700's and 1800's the Catholic church had yet to recognize some Indians of Mexico as human and they were designated animals. When recognized human was there a significant change or was their denial simply thought because they noticed differences.

I don't know of what you write. The Catholic church, at present is not in the field of species definition. And, in any case, I find it intriguing that the church back then would define a target of its proselytization as such. Someone may wish to define a chihuahua and a great dane as different species, but I believe that they would be wrong in the eyes of most people.

[jec41]

If one is set in their own agenda, like the darwinists, don't expect others to agree and conform to it.

"If one is set in their own agenda" is a preposition of agenda not defined other than the agenda of science which is the explanation of fact and existence of a material thing. In other words knowledge by the scientific method. The denial of scientific agenda is philosophical agenda supported by faith, belief and ones own thought. They would deny any knowledge that would change their thought whether logical or not logical.

[jec41]

A different example would probably have been better however it was to demonstrate that thought does not have to be determined by evidence but only faith, belief, and argument for the thought. The question is what occurred to change the thought?

[js1138]

Duh, really?

Did you post this to the wrong person? You quoted something I didn't say or mention.

[js1138]

If Darwin did not know what we know now; and that information contradicts his guesses, it most certainly does question his thoughts about evolution. In fact, it totally refutes them.

It doesn't even touch the history of natural selection. If you think it does, pleas be specific.