Irreducible complexity and Evolution

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Noinden
Why do creationists always misrepresent things?

WE never evolved "from monkeys", yet that is the line that they always wave around.

MUHUHAHAHAHA!
And you claim I don't know how evolution works. Please tell me what the "great apes" supposedly evolved from.

Not monkeys. Monkeys evolved from them. Also, I'm still waiting for you to define what a type is.

a reply to: cooperton

Because they would get fired from any supposedly scientific establishment for pursuing empirical evidence that would prove evolution wrong. Poor Mary Schweitzer when she found soft tissue in dinosaur bones had to make an oath that her heart was with the scientism priesthood rather than any sort of scriptural bias... The (un)scientific inquisition kills all who defy its dogmatic precepts.

I'm sorry you feel so persecuted. But we have standards and rules. If drugs were thrown out onto the market without proper testing, there would be a lot of dead people. Common sense says that any discovery in science has to be verified. You don't agree with that because if you followed the accepted standards, your "data" would fall apart at the seams.

So now C-14 dating is bogus? You guys move the goalposts alot. I can't harpoon a phantom.

Your "leads" have never been validated. It has nothing to do with C14 and everything to do with WHO is making claims about C14 in dinosaur samples. Your "samples" have disappeared. The suspects have also disappeared. This is like saying I developed the cure for cancer but sorry, you can't test it, you can't validate the results, and then disappearing into the aether.

And your description did not coordinate with the long-held conclusion of the Copenhagen Interpretation. You believe that matter reigns, but the leaders of quantum physics demonstrated that consciousness is the foundation for material manifestation.

Please provide the citations where the CONCLUSION you speak of has been published. And I don't mean articles which speculate. I mean research articles that have stated conclusively that consciousness is the foundation for the material universe.

Your other two comments are off topic and irrelevant. Either you understand the science or you don't. And you most definitely don't.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Please come back when you have something relevant to say.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Quadrivium

Please come back when you have something relevant to say.

And yet another running response from an "evolutionist".

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

The results?? From where - the "museum" which supplied the bones? I posted the link to the museum. There's not a scientist on the planet who would touch that with a 10 ft pole.

Because they would get fired from any supposedly scientific establishment for pursuing empirical evidence that would prove evolution wrong.

No...no they wouldn't. Not if the results can be reproduced independently and verified by others. In this case, they won't let anyone else look at their supposed data do independently confirm or rebut it. Are they so afraid of having their errors, deceit and lies shown that they can't abide by the scientific method? Or do they not understand how to utilize it properly?

Poor Mary Schweitzer when she found soft tissue in dinosaur bones had to make an oath that her heart was with the scientism priesthood rather than any sort of scriptural bias...

What a load of bull s... that is. Why do you need to make things up instead of simply addressing the evidence? It's incredibly disingenuous to constantly do this in these threads. Schweitzer had to do no such thing. And as I have noted dozens of times over the years I've been posting here, it's not soft tissue anymore, it is fossilized soft tissue. The biggest deal with this find is that it shows that sometimes assumptions do in fact block of areas of research and nobody had ever bothered to look for fossilized soft tissue inside of fossilized bone before, especially blood vessels and nucleated red blood cells. It's a learning experience, not a condemnation of MES. You're grasping at straws because for some reason you can't reconcile evolution and your god coexisting when evolution says nothing about the existence or lack thereof of of your god.

The (un)scientific inquisition kills all who defy its dogmatic precepts.

Which scientific discipline did you study in college? How much time have you spent in a lab or in the field? Can you tell me about some of the conferences you have attended? Or are you basing these false statements entirely on what websites like ICR and AIG, that don't use science and simply play up your confirmation biases, want you to think? If none of the former apply and only the latter, then you have zero idea how any of this actually works.

Your leads are bogus. They're unsubstantiated.

So now C-14 dating is bogus? You guys move the goalposts alot. I can't harpoon a phantom.

And as has been pointed out previously, when you have to use lies, subterfuge and misrepresentation to illegally obtain samples and get them tested, everything else that follows is equally tainted. Nobody has repeated those results, a hallmark of the scientific method. Nor has anybody has been able to examine the original samples or see the results aside from lying creationists posing as Christians. But in your mind, one liar makes the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis a house of cards in the midst of collapse despite the 1000's and 1000's of pieces of evidence supporting it and the efficacy of huge dating techniques utilized. Your self deception is mind blowing.

a reply to: Quadrivium

So says the willful ignorantist

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Simian- :monkey, ape; also :any of a suborder (Anthropoidea) of primates that includes monkeys, apes, and humans.

As for the comment where I had TYPE: In that context I was speaking of TYPES of Phyla.

Why don't you and Phantom wait on someone more knowledgeable to enter the discussion? You are doing yourselves no favors.
PM Barcs, he is knowledgeable and much easier to discuss this topic with. As I remember, he was not hung up on other peoples beliefs ike you two seem to be and he actually knows his stuff about what he believes.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Quadrivium

So says the willful ignorantist

Again you prove my point. You can not refute what I said so you attack. Childish.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Well here's the thing. -I- was discussing taxonomic ranks which have a scientific definition. "Types" has no scientific definition, so I'm still confused what it means for something to "change types". It's like you are inventing arguments about evolution out of thin air.

Simian- :monkey, ape; also :any of a suborder (Anthropoidea) of primates that includes monkeys, apes, and humans.

*sigh* What predated the Great Apes are the Supraprimates Timeline of human evolution

Why don't you and Phantom wait on someone more knowledgeable to enter the discussion? You are doing yourselves no favors.

Why don't you stick to discussing the thread topic and not waste time on ad hominems that make you look petty and insecure? Especially since I wasn't being offensive first.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Noinden
Why do creationists always misrepresent things?

WE never evolved "from monkeys", yet that is the line that they always wave around.

MUHUHAHAHAHA!
And you claim I don't know how evolution works. Please tell me what the "great apes" supposedly evolved from.

They didn't "come from" mokeys. Humans and Apes have a first common ancestor that was neither a ape nor a human.

To confuse you even further, why stop at humans and apes? It is said that humans and whales (and bats, giraffes, rhinos, and more) all evovled from a common ancestor who was thought to be shrew-like or weasel-like.

But you won't find an animal in the fossil record that was half-human and half-shrew. Or one that was half-whale and half-shrew. That's not the way it works.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
From your link:

30 Ma

Aegyptopithecus
Haplorrhini splits into infraorders Platyrrhini and Catarrhini. Platyrrhines, New World monkeys, have prehensile tails and males are color blind. The individuals whose descendants would become Platyrrhini are conjectured to have migrated to South America either on a raft of vegetation or via a land bridge (the latter is now the favorite choice[21]). Catarrhines mostly stayed in Africa as the two continents drifted apart. Possible early ancestors of catarrhines include Aegyptopithecus and Saadanius.

Also from the site you linked from:

Catarrhini is one of the two subdivisions of the simians, the other being the plathyrrhine (New World monkeys). The Catarrhini contains the Old World monkeys and the apes; the latter of which are in turn further divided into the lesser apes or gibbons and the great apes, consisting of the orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans. The Catarrhine are all native to Africa and Asia. Members of this parvorder are called catarrhines.

As for your other comment?

Why don't you stick to discussing the thread topic and not waste time on ad hominems that make you look petty and insecure? Especially since I wasn't being offensive first.

Check here.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is PeopleNever said it was. I just stated that there is no way to prove what you are saying. What proof there may be is very subjective. No proof + no observation= bad science.
The comment is here if you would like to read what I actually wrote. I do not remember using "come from".

a reply to: Quadrivium

Why don't you just post the citations which substantiate your claims. It doesn't matter what you say, what I say, or what anyone says about any particular topic in science. The evidence for current positions is always in the literature.
So why don't you do a little homework and post some of those citations which endorse your position?

BTW there are hundreds of recognized journals and thousands of articles on evolutionary biology. Perhaps you can find one that agrees with your position.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Soylent Green Is PeopleNever said it was. I just stated that there is no way to prove what you are saying. What proof there may be is very subjective. No proof, no observation= bad science.

There is evidence, but not "proof".

Science very rarely deals with things that are absolutely provable. That's why the scientific method is what it is. Science (through the scientific method) is constantly looking for evidence that can either support or contradict a "going theory". But "support" and "contradict" are not the same as "absolute proof".

Back to the evidence for there being a common shrew-like ancestor to all mammals...Here are a couple of articles (both with some overlapping infomration) that gives a layman's look at the type of detective work (more detailed than what is explained here) that was used to find evidence supporting that idea:

currents.ucsc.edu...

Tracing an Early Placental Mammal Ancestor

www.nature.com...

phenomena.nationalgeographic.com...

a reply to: Phantom423
The burden of proof lies with you . Show me. Remember, you are the one arguing against evolution now. Or would you like to recant your earlier post? Changing the topic won't help.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
Lunch is done. I will look at the links and comment later. Thanks for responding.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Phantom423
The burden of proof lies with you . Show me. Remember, you are the one arguing against evolution now. Or would you like to recant your earlier post? Changing the topic won't help.

Sure. I agree. Here's a recent paper on the evolution of the cerebellum in the great apes and humans.

Now it's your turn to enlighten us as to where they got it wrong.

P.S. I think you need a few lessons in reading comprehension. I asked you to post citations which substantiate your claims. I don't recall posting articles which dispute evolution.

Change the topic? Look in the mirror.

Rapid Evolution of the Cerebellum in Humans and Other Great Apes Robert A. Barton1, * and Chris Venditti2, * 1Evolutionary Anthropology Research Group, Durham University, Durham DH1 3LE, UK 2School of Biological Sciences, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BX, UK

Summary Humans’ unique cognitive abilities are usually attributed to a greatly expanded neocortex, which has been described as ‘‘the crowning achievement of evolution and the biological substrate of human mental prowess’’ [1]. The human cerebellum, however, contains four times more neurons than the neocortex [2] and is attracting increasing attention for its wide range of cognitive functions. Using a method for detecting evolutionary rate changes along the branches of phylogenetic trees, we show that the cerebellum underwent rapid size increase throughout the evolution of apes, including humans, expanding significantly faster than predicted by the change in neocortex size. As a result, humans and other apes deviated significantly from the general evolutionary trend for neocortex and cerebellum to change in tandem, having significantly larger cerebella relative to neocortex size than other anthropoid primates. These results suggest that cerebellar specialization was a far more important component of human brain evolution than hitherto recognized and that technical intelligence was likely to have been at least as important as social intelligence in human cognitive evolution. Given the role of the cerebellum in sensory-motor control and in learning complex action sequences, cerebellar specialization is likely to have underpinned the evolution of humans’ advanced technological capacities, which in turn may have been a preadaptation for language. Results and Discu

www.sciencedirect.com...

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Noinden
Why do creationists always misrepresent things?

WE never evolved "from monkeys", yet that is the line that they always wave around.

MUHUHAHAHAHA!
And you claim I don't know how evolution works. Please tell me what the "great apes" supposedly evolved from.

Apparently you dont know anything about evolution. Funny you would argue against it and not understand it. Bottom line your wrong,Humans did not evolve from apes, gorillas or chimps. We are all modern species that have followed different evolutionary paths, though humans share a common ancestor with some primates there evolution was different from ours. I. Suggest learn about a topic before you speak it will at least make you seem educated.

WOW.....
I can't believe I am having to school evolutionist on their own beliefs.
Please see: Catarrhini (SP?) From this evolution states that the old world monkeys and the ape evolved (eta: and humans, for clarification). It is a subdivision of simians aka monkeys.
Quad

The grouping your looking for is hominids. Are last common ancestor with apes was 2 million years ago. Are genus is very distinctive knows as homo. We are they only remaining species in this genus. All the others died out our closest living relative is chimpanzees ,they would be like second cousins and are not directly related because their genus pan split off just like we did. We didnt evolve from them anymore then they evolved from us. Both species took diffrent branches to say we evolved from them is just stupid, However that doesnt stop you from makingthat claim does it?

a reply to: Quadrivium

I think you are failing to understand how the evolution timeline happened as well as the correct classifications of the animals discussed. That source isn't saying those proto-monkeys are monkeys just because it said the phrase "old world monkeys". They are simians. Simians are a group that includes monkeys (both new and old world types), great apes, and humans. Humans aren't monkeys which aren't apes but ALL of those are simians.

For instance:

Haplorrhini splits into infraorders Platyrrhini and Catarrhini. Platyrrhines, New World monkeys, have prehensile tails and males are color blind.

Platyrrhines are new world monkeys; HOWEVER humans evolved from Catarrhini which aren't monkeys.

Catarrhini splits into 2 superfamilies, Old World monkeys (Cercopithecoidea) and apes (Hominoidea). Our trichromatic color vision had its genetic origins in this period.

Hominoidea are what we evolved from; which are apes. We did NOT evolve from Cercopithecoidea; which are old world monkeys.

Check here

So if I'm to understand you correctly. You are taking offense to something I said (2 days ago btw) to a completely different poster who had been talking to yet ANOTHER completely different poster. Talk about petty. Holding grudges for two days for things that weren't even said to you. I suggest you go out and find some thicker skin.

a reply to: Quadrivium

You accused me of having Science as a religion. You are wrong. I don't care that you don't care. Do not misrepresent things