Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution debate: State board should reject pseudoscience
Columbus Dispatch ^ | February 17, 2002 | Editorial

Posted on 02/18/2002 4:59:53 AM PST by cracker

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,261-1,2801,281-1,3001,301-1,320 ... 1,421-1,440 next last
To: gore3000
How could homo sapiens have been the descendant of homo erectus when the two species met only after homo sapiens was around?

Better yet, how could homo sapiens be descended from erectus when it's been demonstrated that we could not possibly have descended from the neanderthal and erectus is clearly much further removed from us THAN the neanderthal? Neanderthal DNA, of course, has been described as "about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee", thus making comprehensible the otherwise enigmatic lack of evidence of interbreeding despite long periods of contact between the two groups.

Did you read this through Junior? Did you bother to analyze what was being said here? Or do you just throw stuff out hoping that no one will notice how silly it is?

Junior is basically just a propagandist. He keeps on throwing out the same stupid garbage even after it's been totally refuted as in his accusing me of dishonesty for posting quotes from various scientists regarding evolution as if I hadn't provided a thorough refutation of that kind of claim on the previous page of posting. I mean, I've basically just gotten tired of his stupid gratuitous insults and, since the FR moderators apparently lack the willpower to do anything about him, will simply reply in kind henceforth.

Hear that, "Junior? I mean, if you don't feel like being insulted, don't post anything with my name on it. Real simple, isn't it?

1,281 posted on 03/02/2002 2:57:23 AM PST by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1278 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
There are no creationists, there are Christians.

Most Christians have no trouble with science. Some of them are scientists.

If there is something wrong with being a creationist--and there is--it's because people like you have made the label poison. Nobody's a communist anymore either. And there's no socialism; it's called Economic Democracy. (Doesn't that sound wholesome?)

When you blow out your credibility, just re-emerge with a new cover.

1,282 posted on 03/02/2002 4:24:28 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1262 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
What a brilliant proof! However, there is one little problem with your whole "proof" of macro-evolution in this post. The problem is that regardless of your "proof", scientists, even evolutionists have for more than 30-40 years all agreed that man did not descend from monkeys - whether they be orangutangs, chimps or whatever. Therefore for you to cite this as a proof of macro-evolution is highly deceitful. For the authors of that famous article you keep referring to "the 29 proofs of macro-evolution" to say that this is a proof of macro-evolution is a deliberate lie, because long before they wrote it, they knew that man did not descend from monkeys.

What are you spewing about? Did you know that chimpanzees are not monkeys? And no, we're not descended from chimpanzees, but you'd be unhappy to meet that common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. It would be some kind of ape. But cheer up! It wouldn't be a monkey.

1,283 posted on 03/02/2002 4:29:16 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1266 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Funny that each time that you post something from your "list o'links" it gets blown out of the water with a simple wave of the hand.

Funny that you sit there, wave your hands, and say there's no proof.

1,284 posted on 03/02/2002 4:30:34 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1267 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Problem is that they are totally irrelevant to the discussion. They are all too old to be ancestors of homo sapiens.

Don't be silly. You said there was no trace of archaic Homo sapiens (AKA Homo sapiens heidelbergensis). I posted the skulls. I also posted the chart which shows no gaps of overlap in hominid species after 4 million years ago.

Gaps don't help your case even where they do exist. Was your great great great grandfather too old to be your ancestor? Just because you don't know who your father is doesn't mean you didn't have any ancestors.

1,285 posted on 03/02/2002 4:36:40 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1271 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Your statement is a total non-sequitur. First of all, I never denied that man and Neanderthal had 99% the same makeup.

Read your own words and weep:

There are absolutely no Neanderthal traces in homo sapiens.

1,286 posted on 03/02/2002 4:41:30 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1272 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
What is most important though is that just as soon as homo sapiens arose, we begin to see an almost miraculous increase in technology. We see cave paintings, we see large cities, we see farming, and many other of the things which we consider particular to man, the thinking being. These evidences show that homo sapiens was a great jump from whatever came before. Such a great jump in such a short time is completely unexplainable by evolution.

First we got the biology, then we got the culture. But you don't give your Neanderthal cousins enough credit. They did ceremonial burial (an important early advance if you play Civilization II) and had stone tools.

Futhermore, the evidence about interbreeding is far more ambiguous than you state. In Europe, the Neanderthal fossils do not intergrade at all with H. Sapiens and the Neanderthals are particularly robust. Elsewhere, especially in the Middle East, it's much harder to type fossils because they intergrade so much.

1,287 posted on 03/02/2002 4:46:08 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1271 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
My quote from "29 Evidences": Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. The "null hypothesis" given above is false. In the absence of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively . . .

You cut off the number. Wonder why? Anyway, let's fix that.

. . . less than 10-93 (1 out of 1093).

Do you understand what is being shown here? Functionally, all the cytochrome c are the same. You can take the original cytochrome out of a yeast organism, put in human cytochrome, and it will work fine. Most of the molecule is just structural padding. You can have mutations all over the place as long as they don't change 1) the overall geometry or 2) a few critical amino acids at sensitive junctures.

Thus a Designer can reach into his toolbox and use any old cytochrome c when He's designing a new organism. They all work everywhere. That's the significance of this molecule.

But a funny thing happens when you look at the cytochrome of organisms. The more related the organisms seem to be, the more related their cytochromes are. Humans and chimps have exactly the same cytochrome c. Why? The odds are stupendous.

This is what you "refuted" in this way:

What a brilliant proof! However, there is one little problem with your whole "proof" of macro-evolution in this post. The problem is that regardless of your "proof", scientists, even evolutionists have for more than 30-40 years all agreed that man did not descend from monkeys - whether they be orangutangs, chimps or whatever. Therefore for you to cite this as a proof of macro-evolution is highly deceitful. For the authors of that famous article you keep referring to "the 29 proofs of macro-evolution" to say that this is a proof of macro-evolution is a deliberate lie, because long before they wrote it, they knew that man did not descend from monkeys.

A change of subject. Anyay, apes are not monkeys. Evolutionists do think that humans arose from the line of anthropoid apes. You have simply dodged.

Funny how you like to accuse everyone else of dodging.


1,288 posted on 03/02/2002 5:06:16 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1266 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Seems anytime real science disproves your stupid evolutionary theory you either ignore it, or try to cloud the issue.

When I posted the cytochrome c evidence, you responded with a stream of nonsensical garbage.

I'M THE ONE WHO NEVER GETS ANSWERS..

So anyway, I defied you and you clammed up. I still say that Gould has repudiated your abuse of him. Please show where he really meant to say you were right.

1,289 posted on 03/02/2002 5:16:47 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1272 | View Replies]

To: medved
Not only is evidence wasted on you, but the "preview" screen is wasted on you.

Tell your seeing-eye dog to shape up!

1,290 posted on 03/02/2002 5:26:36 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1281 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Most Christians have no trouble with science. Some of them are scientists.

And I have no problem with science. You have been reading my posts for a long time and you know better than to imply that. Your statement above is therefore completely dishonest. What I have a problem with is phony science and that is what evolution is.

The evolutionists constantly keep saying that evolution is science, that evolution is true, that evolution has been proven. However, the first requirement of anything that calls itself science is a detailed consistent theory. Evolution cannot even lay claim to that. Evolution is a mish mash of what-if's maybe's and contradictory statements. As proof of my statement, I will make the following challenge: post exactly what the theory of evolution is, right here.

1,291 posted on 03/02/2002 6:06:10 AM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1282 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
You have been reading my posts for a long time and you know better than to imply that.

You have a lot of trouble with science in every sense of "have trouble with."

1,292 posted on 03/02/2002 6:09:47 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1291 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
As proof of my statement, I will make the following challenge: post exactly what the theory of evolution is, right here.

I will give you the opportunity to show some honesty. Have you been answered on this question before?

1,293 posted on 03/02/2002 6:11:06 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1291 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
When I posted the cytochrome c evidence, you responded with a stream of nonsensical garbage.

LIAR AND SLIMER

That is why you do not post my answer. That is why you do not address what I said and try to refute it. You got caught with your pants down. Your post was totally irrelevant to the matter at hand. Whether the cytochrome c of man and monkeys are identical or not is totally irrelevant to the question of whether man descended from monkeys because the question has been answered for decades in the negative by scientists. Man did not descend from any of the known apes and science says so.

1,294 posted on 03/02/2002 6:15:23 AM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1289 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
[Your 1294]

Now you're simply brazening. And why do you keep saying "monkeys?" Do you see that as crucial to your dodge?

The actual current thinking is that humans and chimpanzees--not monkeys--share a common ancestor 4.5 - 5 million years ago. This is what evolutionists do think and it's where the molecular evidence (including cytochrome c) does point.

1,295 posted on 03/02/2002 6:20:29 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1294 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
BTW, you're still dodging on Hippo-Cetacean DNA evidence and Quote Dishonesty.
1,296 posted on 03/02/2002 6:23:31 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1294 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Do you understand what is being shown here?

The only thing that anyone needs to understand is that man did not descend from monkeys, which means that your entire post (and your reposting after it has been shown to be irrelevant) is irrelevant to the question of man's descent from monkeys.

As to your claim about being able to switch around the genes of different species, that is total bunk also. While the blood of different species is functionally equivalent if you put the blood of one species in another you will kill the individual.

You continue to show a total lack of analytic thinking - as do all evolutionists. This is why evolution is not science, it is pop-scientism for atheists.

1,297 posted on 03/02/2002 6:23:51 AM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1288 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
As to your claim about being able to switch around the genes of different species, that is total bunk also. While the blood of different species is functionally equivalent if you put the blood of one species in another you will kill the individual.

The cytochrome c molecules, not the genes that encode them, have been extensively swapped in experiments to prove their functional equivalence. How much of your misunderstanding is real and how much a convenient excuse to thrash bandwith and proclaim triumph in large blue fonts?

1,298 posted on 03/02/2002 6:26:56 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1297 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Have you been answered on this question before?

Stop the excuses, post it here. Getting a straight answer from an evolutionist is like pulling teeth. Post the darned thing! It is a secret? Or is my statement true? Evolution is not even a theory, it is just a mish-mash of contradictory nonsense.

1,299 posted on 03/02/2002 6:26:56 AM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1293 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
I want to see if you're capable of admitting anything. You have been extensively answered upon this and every point you've ever raised.

Do you remember?

1,300 posted on 03/02/2002 6:28:11 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1299 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,261-1,2801,281-1,3001,301-1,320 ... 1,421-1,440 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson