Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

I don't take orders from clowns. (You're always whining bout name-calling, so there's something to whine about.) If you had ever once provided anything resembling evidence for that ID nonsense, you'd have a basis for asking for such an example. You haven't and you don't.

The patterns are the evidence. Archaeologists use patterns, why can't evolutionists?

No, patterns are not evidence. If you want to call yourself an evolutionist (which is hilarious), help yourself. It doesn't apply to me. Apophenia is false pattern recognition--do you think there is a "man in the moon?" Would you be willing to bet thousands of dollars on your ability to recognize patterns in the cards dealt at a blackjack table? When you see a cloud that looks just like a ship, does that mean there's a ship sailing across the sky? Pattern recognition can be useful to humans and machines--it does not constitute any king of evidence for scientific purposes.

Besides crediting yourself for what I previously said, the rest of what you saiid is some of the more humorous crap Ive read (besides your "Analyses" of Flood crapola).

Im sure no decent archeologist would look at Stonhenge and, from some kin of pattern recognition, treat it like a biological sample to analyze whether it was made naturally. Thats absurd. Stonehenge stories and knowledge of its human origins go back to times of pre archeological science methods. Thats hardly mere pattern recognition.

Pattern recognition has lots of applications, unfortunately somehow using the craft to use to support your fremzied belief in ID doesnt appear to be one of them.Or if it does, you havent convincingly presented Youre just flipping words and phrases to present a scientistic basis for these beliefs, as if the out of control application of some recently discovered "NEW TRICK" by you will somehow validate your Bullshit. Im kind of , once again, worn out by your inanity and your consistant "saladification" of terms ;and presenting some coined phrases of nonsense cause it sounds "good enough to fool the people in church" .

Mechanics use wrenches to tighten nuts on bolts, why cant evolutionists use wrenchs to decode the fossil record??

Always pick the right tool for the job. Dont wave a hammer around in the lab youre liable to bust something.

It is not true that archaeologists use pattern recognition as BJ implies. If an archaeologist sees a tool or a cultural artifact, they might say: "This is Solutrean." But they also look at the stratum to determine if it is within the appropriate time range. They also consider whether the artifact is an erratic (moved into a different stratum by methodological fault or by other human activity at an earlier time). They are also aware that they might be looking at the earliest example of bi-facial pressure flake tool-making, and that it will be necessary to revise the hypothesis that the earliest users of the method were the Solutreans. But they don't make stupid mistakes based on gross family resemblance. This is a Solutrean tool on the left, and a Clovis tool on the right:



To the untutored eye they may seem to be the same, but the Solutrean point has the the spalls removed in a pattern perpendicular to the long centerline of the point, while the Clovis point has the spalls removed on a diagonal to the long center line. Apart from the physical distance which separates such artifacts, and the thousands of years which separate them, they don't look the same. It is wishful thinking to allege that a cursory reference to pattern recognition can be construed as evidence. Our friend here seems to have an obsessive need to display, again and again, just how ignorant he is on the subject of the sciences about which he pontificates.

Thats all quite true but more recent work in finding some of those Brazilian jungle civiliizations had used LIDAR an FLIR scanning. The actual locations of the ancient cities, now lost in the jungles, were located by looking for aerieal photo lineations and "square sections of soil patterns, indicating human activities. Heres one that showed these slight linear elevations in soils that had been covered over by jungle so normal techniques wouldnt have worked



My point was that he just announces a technique without considering its appropriateness. Im not sure how pattern recognition in evolution research actually comes in. I only know that, Ted Daeschler speaking about hunting for tiny fossils along the beachfront in Elsmere Island using "pattern avoidance" (in this technique ones eyes reject the normal beach drek and the unusual stuff just pops out).

Overall, its true hes just babbling and "techniques name dropping"

I have to report that, last week I was over at St Michaels boatyard and was talking to a retired archeologist who stated that some very new (yet unpublished) data on ancient EuropeanDNA haplogroup presence in ancient Nantikoke and coastal plain specimens. SO, we seem to have some potential new data that needs to go through lots of QA .

those round and linear features from the LIDAR maps are an artifact of the scanning and resolution program. The shadowy areas dont indicate heighth but actual SLOPE , the darker the shade, the steeper the slope. Most of the features are invisible from normal air photos an the LIDAR technique, called "Hillshade" or "Slopeshade" brings out connected patterns of piles of soil or gravel, and in som areas in UK, actual roads and tiny barrows

That's because I didn't say you needed fossil DNA to confirm evolution, because all you need is existing DNA. Farmerman's comments do not conflict with mine at all.

But it's amusing the way you paint imaginary corners around us just to satisfy your own rationalizations.

I got to say, your comment about if it works for micro it works for macro evolution is illogical.
Just because a machine like a car that has sensors built-in can have the headlights turn on and off automatically, or that If it has been designed with the ability to raise and lower a sunroof, Doesn’t mean that a person should EVER conclude that without The designer which gave the machine it’s abilities to minorly change/adapt that it could naturally morph into an airplane or submarine etc.

Likewise with ‘biological machines’... exactly what the fossil record highlights.
Not a single transitional fossil ever found. Just as there is not one transitional specie Lake Whales with legs walking the planet, not one.
Actually, ‘scientists’ used to interpret certain whale bones (which we now know are used for reproduction) as vestigial legs lol.

But again, just as a Jehovah’s Witness who does not want to see the truth interpret words to fit their religious beliefs, so do many so called scientists/ppl.
The same people conclude millions and billions of years with wacky dating techniques, and cannot distinguish the difference, or acknowledge the fact that they rely heavily on assumptions.
They call it ‘science’ haha But really, who are they fooling? (Apparently millions/billions of ppl) like many other false teachings in this world

Once again the evolution argument switches its story to fit the evolution scenario. You can't have it both ways.

It's like the argument that there are no peer reviewed papers supporting the ID argument. When peer reviewed papers are cited the argument switches to "you can't rely on a couple of fringe researchers" or the even more lame response of posting a bunch of valid but unrelated stuff and saying you have refuted the paper.

And then the last resort of the cowardly - just calling your opponent ignorant, a religious fool, etc. . At least you personally have not resorted to that but I'm sure you can guess who the guilty are.

I'm slowly drifting away from A2k because of this tactic. Quora does not tollerate that BS and civil debate is so much more enjoyable there.

Quora isn't really a messageboard for discussion is it? I always thought it was more like a question and answer site.

This just shows how ignorant you are. Weve found thousands. The only difference is that when a transitional foorm is found (like Tiktaalik rosaea) or th recent series of Jurassic "proto birds fossils", the Creationists and IDers say that weve merely created another "Gap".

Its another gasp and grasp at totally inane logic by you guys.
Stop reading comic books as scientific journals.

You dont understand enough about the subject to even come up with a useful critique. Do you believe that nuclear energy or weapons work?? Or do you believe its all done with mirrors. They apply the same principles of disintegrations per second and decay constants and half lives as dos radioisotopic dating techniques.

Everything in life contains assumptions, including the one that says you even know of what youre talking. (I strongly doubt that youve even got a GED). Assumptions used in radioactive decay are very tightly applied and are well understood and , at best, would account for less than 0.02% of a final "Rad yars" calc. You are mostly a dishonest BSer.
Youre only good to stand for an example of "ignorant and ineducable"

True, the format is Q & A. The debates are not in the answer itself but the comment threads attached.

Sometimes the debate is carried on by posting a separate well phrased question or answer on the same subject catagory. That can be fun too.

quora wont tolrate fools as much as A2K does, and yes, it is a Q/A site mostly.

and once again Lead ft misrepresnts what is said. Is it his avanced age? Or is he just being a denier o facts.

Many times when DNA an the fossil record seem to be at disagreements, it usually gets rectified by more data. The fossil record picked the ancient Hyrqcoides of the early Neogene as an ancestoral cousin or mother spcies of modern hyraxes and Elephants and Syrenians. It was done by similarities of and DNA attributes from Hyrx to daughter species (and families)
Same thing with whales , primates, and canids .

Cant come up with more convincing evidence than direct divergent evolution from fossil records and DNA . All of which appears to be geographic isolation adaptation driven (Im sure the IDers will say that their intelligent being , created these several cataclysms JUST to achieve his "algorithm".. BUT WAIT, if its all an algorithm Do DNA changes occur before or after the cataclysm that causes the evolutionary change??

No one has found a transitional fossil anymore than someone like a jehovah witness has found ‘evidence’ to interpret the words they claim support there worldview.
Interpretation.
Just as no one has found whales with legs, yet many ppl have and still do claim such things. They used to interpret reproductive bones as ‘vestigial’ and as evidence(just as you are doing)

https://answersingenesis.org/missing-links/is-tiktaalik-evolutions-greatest-missing-link/

The Coelacanth used to be labelled as a ‘walking fish’ like Tiktaalik lol....USED to be? Why? Cause they interpreted the fossil evidence wrong....just like every. Single. So. Called. Transitional fossil.

And decay constants you say? (I’ve explained this before too). But here I go again for you sir.(but more for other potential readers, sry, cause I don’t think u r willing to embrace the truth
To date things... I ask what constants? The ones we observe now may be ‘constsnt’ BUT we have to Assume they have Always had the same ‘half lives’ for example....yet what we do know is that these decay rates CAN BE extremely accelerated, greatly affecting the results.
And if these decay rates have been accelerated this n the past, This would make things Dated millions of years old, only thousands of years old even.

A simple example would be tree ring dating too.
Assume that every ring is annual, and you can get an ‘old age’....but is this the case always? No. Multiple tree rings can be formed in one year, which could greatly affect the results, making the true age of the tree much younger.
Have these trees had accelerated growth rings in the past?

Likewise with all other dating techniques, they all have assumptions at play, and are unreliable.

Human development of machinery does not equate to natural selection. Evolution in nature has many examples including Darwin's finches.

https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/4
https://www.thoughtco.com/charles-darwins-finches-1224472

Darwins finches is nothing more than an example of ‘biological machinery’ being able to adapt/change within its own kind/gene pool.
Dogs will be dogs and cats will be cats at the end of the day with limited minor variations.Always was a finch, always will be a finch. Black human white human brown human, Still human do you see?
Genesis ‘God created them according to their KINDS.
Genesis 3:18 ‘thorns will begin to appear’ (micro-evolution as some call it) you see?
That’s sort of example fits right into a creation model. By stating such examples all you’re doing is supporting a creation worldview, so Why post it?
It also says a lot about Darwin and all scientists don’t ya think? Really? To draw such a conclusion that fish turned into humans, that reptiles turned into birds, and that land animals turned into whales etc. All from finches and such?! Lol

Yeah, CI. Don't you see that the Bible takes away the need to know anything. Any **** you can make up suffices. That's why snakes can talk to people, when they want to, and Jonah can set up shop in the belly of a fish.

And you are perfectly wrong but Im tired of arguing with your vappidityness. If you believe crap like AIG, then you deserve your midset. Ham's totally bolloxed the descriptions and cladistics crap of fish so its really astounding in its inanity. He is merely preaching to the weak brained Fundamentlists . When he argues against the relationships between Tiktaalik and Eustenopteron , he fails to look at the entire list of similarities and "intermdiate" structures of the rhipidistian fish that "climb the ladder" of evolution, like the ability for Tiktaliik to be able to swivel its head on its neck.( other fish cant do this ). It is an inbetween twixt the true fish and , true amphibians say Ichthyostega, and all this happened in Devonian Times.

All the other fish you mentioned had no any evolutionary significance to reptiles or amphibians. Coelocanth eg, was known from day 1 that it was a general with no relationship to amphibians or reptiles


As far as your non unerstanding of radioactive decay, maybe you had some really poor teachers or you come from a Fundamentalist background and it took. Radioctive decay , do you believe that iron didnt rust in ancient times?
We can see spectra and do isotope ratios in star spectra. From this we can calculate the "half life" and Decay constants of any isotopes we see (from ratios of long lived radionuclides). We then can calculate others by compiling half life residua .
By uusing star spectra we are looking back perhaps up to a billion yars ago in light emission. Thus we can see that decay rates in 1 billion year old spectra are the same as radioisotopes as today.

I think you get much of your erroneous views of nuclide half life from Hank Morris and John Whitcombs "THE GENESIS FLOOD", another of the batch of crappy anti science books written by Creation SCientists. If you read Morris's book, p 358 359 and you can see the basic errors of the mathematics that Creation critiques on Radioisotopic dating is based. (I use this book to challenge students in developing equations for isotopic decay by specific single or multiple decay chains).

I hear that from Creationists and Ive always wondered why their arguments, though silly and dead wrong, are believed as truth. I think the answer is that you guys believe your gurus of Biblical Science without question .(I really dont think youre knowledgeable enough to even understand the shortcomings of "Morris' math". Also Ive never debated with anyone of your ilk, including you, whove sounded like theye ever taken a course on anything of which they speak , including you. You plop crap from Discovery Institute, AIG, or ICS and stop questioning.

Trees respond to the environment like anything else, We use "ring ratio indices" to compare growth ring widths (both bi seasonal and uniseasonal). A tree exposed to a wet yer will ofetn have thick summer rings and , up to a point, after which the rings will be shriveled because the tree is under water or in saturated soil. Same thing with dry weather summer rings. Also long term droughts can be masured in severity by comparing ratios of last yars ring width to this yars and so on.
Stuff like age dating is pretty accurate when cross plotting is used and the entire bi seasonal growth rings are included.
Tree rings are a fairly robust short term tool for environmental evaluations and chemical uptake in contaminant plume zones. I often look at ring ratio indices and ICAP chemistry of metal uptake . (lthough this is often dicey due to Adsorption /Desorption (Ka/Kd).

Re (isotopes). No you havent. Youre other name was used to start a thread about "accurcy of radisotope dating" I answered then I got some Creationit crap back that NEVER constituted "an explanation" . It sounded more like the Apostles Creed of anti-science.

Look, you wanna base your life on "answers in Genesis" knock yerself out, I dont care. Just dont start trying to blow that crap up my ass and make believe youknow of what youre speaking cause I do this for a living and you are totally and symmetrically full of ****.