Evolution Is Practically Useless, Admits Darwinist

Creation Evolution Headlines ^ | 08/30/06 | Creation Evolution Headlines

[stands2reason]

I don't see your logic.

[Virginia-American]

The TOE does make a lot of predictions like that. Most of which are never found.

Put up or shut up. What are you talking about?

And much of what is found, is questionable

Show me the peer-reviewed questioning.

Tiktaalik is indeed an excellent example. Did you perhaps miss all the threads debunking this as a missing [sic - it's not missing] link? And showing the simliarities to existing shallow water fish.

The links don't work. Of course there are similarities to fish - but also to amphibians. Show some peer-reviewed evidence, not DI or AiG armchair speculation. The review is important because the creationist and ID advocacy groups have an extremely poor record when it comes to telling the truth.

BTW, it appears that you acknowledge that it was found where the ToE said it would be.

[Captain Beyond]

bump for later read

[Virginia-American]

They CLAIMED all that!! Where is the GRADUAl CHANGING EVIDENCE of EVOLUTION??? Hint...it doesn't exist except in viruses.

Please be more specific. Who claimed what? Was the claim later proved true?

A good example of the gradual change is the series between reptiles and mammals. Follow the link I gave in post 344.

[RunningWolf]

the above picture is from a creationist website, and they say it's a bird. Can you really look at it and deny that birds have changed over time

That is an interesting proposition you have there

I don't know where they got it but that skull looks like another composite skull that has a few suspect and unnatural intersections.

W.

[Virginia-American]

LOL ..show me where Darwin predicted the pre cambrian fossils.....

IIRC, it's in the "Origin", I don't have the precise reference handy

...this discovery is major evidence against Darwin!

Huh? In what way? Sometimes you see anti-evolutionists attempt to use the "Cambrian explosion" as evidence against standard biology - now you're saying preCambrian life is!

[RunningWolf]

Well I was hoping to see another artfully drawn evo flow diagram but even that is not on that link.

You should have seen the exhibits at all the big museums 40 to 30 years ago. Life-size panoramic vistas of the imagined 1million+old creatures, and then read parts of their 'thesis', and seen the shards of bone (off an African terrain) that gave form to their visions (yeah Leaky and the rest) And you just might have said .. whhaat?

And from that, you might even have begun to question the authority that academia grants itself.

W.

[RunningWolf]

That skull might be a transitional in your flow chart with all its 'best guess dotted lines' but that is where it ends.

That skull is nothing but a composite (they assert is 1.75 mya) 1.75 million years old, and is made up of a few hundred pieces that don't fit together all to well.



Just one place to start is that rear head area, another is the profile. But don't take my word for it, take the images they have as evidence, blow them up and start taking a look. Then put that in context to what they are suggesting. Then apply the most accurate dating method to the pieces, and notice the margin of error.

W.

[ReignOfError]

I am a physician and Darwin has absolutely nothing to add to my scientific thought or practice.

So if you had a TB patient, you'd give him the same antibiotics today that you would have given him in 1952?

[ReignOfError]

evolution is anathema to physics and cosmology.

Evolution is irrelevant to physics and cosmology. They're separate subjects. You might as well argue that music theory is anathema to architecture.

[muawiyah]

Since the telescope was invented in Middleburg Nederland some time in the 1400s, we know the ancients did not, in fact, have telescopes.

On the other hand, your belief in the total uniformity of human visual accuity is highly disturbing. There is and has been substantial variation.

[muawiyah]

Don't know that he rejected "evolution", but he sure had some funny views on "genetics".

Remember that he spent his life before the discovery of DNA.

[muawiyah]

The Tiktaalik critter had some surprises. Not everything was predicted, and some things that were predicted hadn't happened.

The only legitimate claim is that there should have been an "in between critter" at some point, and there he is.

[muawiyah]

Hiring lots of lawyers will find you more oil than other techniques. As I've been saying "claim jumping" works.

[muawiyah]

It's possible to trick chickens into growing teeth. It's a one gene sort of thing ~ and a small fraction of chickens do grow teeth anyway.

Why would anyone believe that no bird today grows teeth?

[muawiyah]

Bacteria obviously have an "immune system" ~ we have "immune systems". Getting over a cold is not a case of "evolution in action". Same with the bacteria.

Look, folks, we really do have to get a handle on word usage or we'll lose the words.

I know there are some who argue that any genetic change at all constitutes "evolution", but such changes sometimes bring about no change in function ~ so it's not sufficient to say that "change", per se, constitutes evolution.

Else, we might tell young children "evolve into your pajamas".

Capice?

[muawiyah]

BTW, concerning the arrival of modern Iron Age man to North America, there's a really big problem on the East Coast ~ the soil is acidic enough that almost any chunk of iron (knife blades, ploughs, helmets, swords, guns) that fell into the soil 300 or 400 years ago is now gone ~ dissolved ~ ain't there no more.

Makes it difficult to do archaeology ~

[ml1954]

All Dose Skulls Are Fakes And Frauds; Part 2, Rerun: Placemarker

[Physicist]

It doesn't matter whether this particular archaeopteryx skull is a reconstruction or not. There are several complete skeletons that have been found, and they all have teeth.

[RunningWolf]

Yus are reduced to a placemarker placemarker