3
   

Darwinists: Persisting despite the evidence

 
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 07:05 pm
@spendius,
anybody want to weigh in on "IDA?"

Deal in Hamburg bar led scientist to Ida fossil, the 'eighth wonder of the world'

• Anonymous collector kept fossil in private for quarter of a century
• Purchase of specimen with $1m price tag was huge gamble for scientist

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/fossil-ida-missing-link-discovery
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 09:23 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Rosborne979 if that is correct it is sad that the gentleman does not understand the theory as the survival of the fittest is a way way overboard simplification of just one element of the theory.

Gunga's been trying to sell his snake oil for a long time, we're used to it. Smile
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 09:25 pm
@panzade,
panzade wrote:
anybody want to weigh in on "IDA?"

Another one of those annoying transitional fossils. We're knee deep in the damn things.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 10:26 pm
@spendius,
Spendius religion when it is applies to a child before he had reach the age of reason is not a dignified mean of social control in any way or in any manner.

The idea that the vast majority of our citizens had a need to be enslaved in this manner in order to achieve a peaceful and orderly society is not one that I can buy into.

True it is one of the means that humans had used for social controls and according to the cycle theory of human cultures when you have too large a percent of the total population that can see behind the curtain the result is a large scale power struggle resulting in destroying the society in question.

In any case it is my opinion we can no longer afford such a control on our citizens minds as our current technology allow one small group or even one man to do way too must harm and religion have a long history of driving some people to perform insane and destructed acts.

Jones town come to mind where a hundred or so parents end up killing their own children on the order of their god/human.
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 10:35 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
We're knee deep in the damn things.


at a million a pop?...somethin ' drove the price up on this puppy
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 10:50 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Fat-Cat Theocrat Funds Creationism Crusade....


Proves even a fat cat can come up on the right side of something here and there, doesn't it?

Bully for the fat cat. Evolution is junk science and, as junk science goes, a spectacularly evil and dangerous variety of such and getting rid of it is a service to the world for fat and thin cats alike.

Again this is not about Christianity. I RECOMMEND Christianity if anybody needs a recommendation but if all you need is something better than evolutionism, pretty much anything would do, that isn't asking for much. Rastafari is better, voodoo is better, and santeria is better.

OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 11:41 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

yes but wheres this EVIDENCE.
arguing with an argument is just stupidity unless you have evidence.

No.
That is error, Professor.
Anyone is free to undermine an argument by showing its flaws,
resulting in a conclusion that is a non-sequitur.
For instance:
"Some dogs are furry.
Some dogs are named Obama.
Ergo: Obama is furry."

Obama might be a snake or something else,
hence that conclusion is unreliable and debunked,
having neither been proven true nor false.

Q.E.D.:
it is not necessarily just stupidity
to dispute an argument without your own evidence.




David
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 05:00 am
@OmSigDAVID,
go back and read his original Dave, Hes been arguing from the side and is making claims AGINST the evidence for nat selection but replacing it with none of his own. Its a standard ploy in the Cretinist gangland. They will divert you with a proposition, claim that there is ample evidence to support their side, and then merely ignore presenting this evidence.
Anything hes presented is merely "quote mining"
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 05:15 am
@gungasnake,
As the theory of evolution had been accepted science for over a 130 years now and only challenge is by the Christian far right, your claims that it is junk science have zero foundation.

Gungasnake given the above facts what do you think you are gaining by making such silly claims back by such nonsense?

Would you also care to begin a thread on the theory that we did not land on the moon, as you cannot do any more to completely ruin your creditability then you already had done.



farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 05:16 am
@farmerman,
One of the arguments made was against the biogeographic distribution of ratite birds. Recent DNA findings have rearranged entire ratite linneages so that a simple "rafting from a Gondwana homeland" is not the simple solution. HOWEVER, gungas cohorts try to make an argument that
1Ratites didnt drift east with the splitting continents

2therefore they were Created separately.

THIS LAST POINT is made, as you can see, without any evidence at all. Its accomplished only by claimiung that nat selection as proposed by Darwin , was a quasi religious woldview. POPPYCOCK.says I.

Quote:
Most parts of the former Gondwana have ratites, or have had until the fairly recent past.

There are two taxonomic approaches to ratite classification. One combines the groups as families in the order Struthioniformes. The other approach supposes that the lineages evolved mostly independently and thus elevates the families to order rank (e.g. Rheiformes, Casuariformes etc.).

The traditional account of ratite evolution has the group emerging in Gondwana in the Cretaceous, then evolving in their separate directions as the continents drifted apart. Cladistic analysis of morphology strongly supports this"Ratites share too many features for their current forms to be parsimoniously explained by convergent evolution.

However, recent analysis of genetic variation between the ratites conflicts with this"DNA analysis appears to show that the ratites diverged from one another too recently to share a common Gondwanian ancestor, and suggests that the kiwi are more closely related to the cassowaries than the moa.

At present, there is no generally accepted explanation. Also, there is the Middle Eocene fossil "proto-ostrich" Palaeotis from Central Europe, which either implies that the ancestral ratites had not yet lost flight when they were dispersing all over Gondwana"by the Middle Eocene, both Laurasia and Gondwana had separated into the continents of today"or that the "out-of-Gondwana" hypothesis is wrong. Research continues, but at present the ratites are perhaps the one group of modern birds for which no robust theory of their evolution and paleobiogeography exists. Current opinion tentatively is supporting a splitting of the group, with the Struthioniformes sensu stricto being one of the last ratite lineages to emerge.



Honest scientific research is continuing and many grad students are able to get their degrees with some meaningful dissertations. NOONe, of whom I am aware, is proceeding ahead to get a MS or PhD in paleo with a CREATIONIST or ID base for their research.


PS, all the recent DNA data merely shows that a mechanism for the spread of the related species must be determined. IT DOES NOT REFUTE THAT EVOLUTION HAS OCCURED. To debunk that claim, we can merely look at the DNA sequences from all the ratites and see that we have a common relationship within their genes and these sequences show a pattern of dispersal not "special creation"

BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 06:10 am
@farmerman,
Farmerman they had millions of dollars to generate nonsense far faster then you or anyone else can tear it into small pieces.

Unless our friend here is completely brain dead he must also know his anti-evolution claims are complete nonsense.

My question is why is he then posting this as he must also know that he is not going to convince anyone of his position is he just trolling?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 06:45 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
As the theory of evolution had been accepted science for over a 130 years now and only challenge is by the Christian far right, your claims that it is junk science have zero foundation.


Sorry, but that's bullshit. The concept of macroevolution has been put to real tests and failed them all. Best known was the decades-long series of experiments with fruit flies in the previous century. Fruit flies breed new generations every couple of days; if you run experiments on them for two or three decades continuously, then you're talking about more generations of fruit flies than there ever have been of monkeys, apes, humans, or anything like that on the planet.

They subjected the flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations, heat, cold, blast, shock, every kind of radiation and every sort of chemical they could survive, and then recombined the mutants every way they could think of.

All they ever got were fruit flies, sterile freaks, and non-sterile freaks which returned to the norm for fruit flies in two or three generations.

No wasps, no hornets, no bees, no ants, no mantises, no grasshoppers or butterflies or anything else at all, just fruit flies. The whole thing is driven by information and the only information they had was that for fruit flies.

So unambiguous were these results that a number of the scientists publically renounced Darwin and evolution. including the famous case of Richard Goldschmidt who afterwards claimed he was being totally ostracised and subjected to something like the "two minute hates" you might have read about in Orwell's 1984. Same kind of treatment Bein Stein describes in his movie.

That was basically a laboratory disproof. If evolution were about science rather than ideologies and lifestyles, it would have been dropped at that point.

Then you had the discovery of the information system and code of RNA/DNA in the 1960s. Information codes do not just sort of happen. Several top mathematicians have stated that the argument over evolution should have ended at that point, i.e. that the evos should have given it up at that point. Naturally that didn't happen, since evolution is basically a yuppie religion.

In fact here's a story about another test which evolution failed:

http://www.icr.org/article/4593/

Quote:

Human-Ape Hybridization: A Failed Attempt to Prove Darwinism
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.*

Ilya Ivanov (1870-1932) was an eminent biologist who achieved considerable success in the field of artificial insemination of horses and other animals. Called “one of the greatest authorities on artificial fecundation,”1 he graduated from Kharkov University in 1896 and became a professor of zoology in 1907. His artificial insemination techniques were so successful that he was able to fertilize as many as 500 mares with the semen of a single stallion.

Ivanov also pioneered the use of artificial insemination to produce various hybrids, including that of a zebra and a donkey, a rat and a mouse, a mouse and a guinea pig, and an antelope and a cow. His most radical experiment, though, was his attempt to produce a human-ape hybrid.2 He felt that this feat was clearly possible in view of how successful he had been in his animal experiments--and how close evolutionary biologists then regarded apes and humans. The experiments were supported by some of the most respected biologists of the day, including Professor Hermann Klaatsch3 and Dr. F. G. Crookshank.4 The main opposition was from "two or three religious publications."5

His Project Begins

In the mid 1920s, Professor Ilya Ivanov began his project, funded by the Soviet government, to hybridize humans and apes by artificial insemination.6 The funds for his project equaled over one million in today's dollars. Ivanov presented his human-ape hybrid experiment idea to the World Congress of Zoologists in Graz, and in 1924 he completed his first experiment in French Guinea. He first attempted to produce human male/chimpanzee female hybrids, and all three attempts failed. Ivanov also attempted to use ape males and human females to produce hybrids but was unable to complete the experiment because at least five of the women died.

Because Ivanov was then an internationally respected scientist, he was able to obtain prominent sponsors for his project, including the polymath Otto Schmidt, editor of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, and Nikolai Gorbunov, a chemical engineer and close friend of Lenin.7

After Professor Ivanov detailed the rationale behind his idea, the British government, home of Darwin, promised to help raise money for the project. The Russian government contributed the first 10,000 USD, and a number of prominent American patrons of science were also very supportive of the project.

Efforts to Support Evolution

Charles Lee Smith wrote that the objective of Ivanov's experiments was to achieve "artificial insemination of the human and anthropoid species, to support the doctrine of evolution, by establishing close kinship between man and the higher apes."5 The project was supported by The American Association for the Advancement of Atheism because it was seen as "proof of human evolution and therefore of atheism."8 When applying to the Soviet government for funds, Ivanov emphasized the importance of his research for anti-religious propaganda.7

Attorney Howell S. England wrote that the scientists involved in advising the project "are confident that hybrids can be produced, and, in the event we are successful, the question of the evolution of man will be established to the satisfaction of the most dogmatic anti-evolutionists," concluding that the "original idea was that only hybrids from the gorilla would prove fertile."5

However, the scientist advisors wanted the field researchers to use orangutans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and possibly gibbons in the experiments. The researchers accepted the polygenetic theory of human evolution, concluding that orangutans should be crossed with humans of the "yellow race," gorillas with humans of the "black race," chimpanzees with the "white race," and gibbons with "the more brachycephalic peoples of Europe" (he probably meant Jews). The purpose was "to try to demonstrate the close relationship of human and ape stocks."9

The scientists concluded that these matches would ensure that the hybrids were fertile because it was believed that the "yellow race" evolved from orangutans, the "black race" from gorillas, the "white race" from chimpanzees, and the "brachycephalic peoples" from gibbons. They even concluded that "it would be possible to produce the complete chain of specimens from the perfect anthropoid to the perfect man."7 Howell England wrote that Dr. Crookshank of London, who "has made a minute anatomical study of the three larger anthropoids," is convinced from his research that if the "orang" can successfully be "hybridized with the yellow race, the gorilla with the black race, and the chimpanzee with the white race, all three hybrids will reproduce themselves."

In his opinion each species of anthropoid is more closely related to its corresponding human type than it is to either of the other anthropoids. In other words…the chimpanzee has a closer relationship to the white race than to the gorilla or the orang. The gibbon…has its corresponding human type in the more brachycephalic peoples of Europe.10

England noted that the research team would proceed along these lines because the scientists involved were all in complete accord with Dr. Crookshank's views. To achieve their research goals, the scientists used deception. For example, Ivanov attempted to "inseminate black females with ape sperm without their consent, under the pretext of medical examination in the local hospital."

The French governor, however, forbade him from carrying out this part of the project. But Ivanov saw no moral problem here. He angrily reported to his sponsors in the Kremlin about the primitive fears of the blacks and the bourgeois prejudices of the French.7

Time magazine opined that if this experiment failed, evolution would still not be invalidated because this "test of evolution would be decisive only in the event that pregnancy, whether productive of healthy offspring or not, could be induced." Conversely, if the experiment succeeded, "fresh and final evidence would be established that humans and anthropoids belong to a common genus of animal life." Furthermore, to more confidently establish human-from-ape evolution as fact, the "hybrid fertilization would have to be attempted upon females of both species, human and ape."

Fully formed, healthy offspring, if they resulted, would not be regarded as "missing links," but as living proof that apes and men are species as closely allied as horses and asses which can be hybridized to produce mules or hinnies. If an ape-man or man-ape hybrid should prove fecund, the relationship of the two parent species would be proved even closer than is now supposed. If no offspring resulted, evolution would by no means fail; the distance of apes and men from a parent stock would merely be demonstrated to be as great or greater than it is now estimated.10

In the end, the research failed and has not been attempted again, at least publicly. Today we know it will not be successful for many reasons, and Professor Ivanov's attempts are, for this reason, a major embarrassment to science. One problem is humans have 46 chromosomes--apes 48--and for this reason the chromosomes will not pair up properly even if a zygote is formed. Another problem is a conservatively estimated 40 million base pair differences exist between humans and our putative closest evolutionary relatives, the chimps. These experiments are the result of evolutionary thinking and they failed because their basic premise is false.11

References

1. Russian Admits Ape Experiments. The New York Times, June 19, 1926, 2.
2. Pain, S. 2008. The Forgotten Scandal of the Soviet Ape-Man. New Scientist. 2670: 48-49.
3. Klaatsch, H. 1923. The Evolution and Progress of Mankind. Ed. Adolf Heilborn, trans. Joseph McCabe. New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company Publishers.
4. Crookshank, F. G. 1924. The Mongol in Our Midst: A Study of Man and His Three Faces. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co. Revised (3rd) edition, 1931. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.
5. Soviet Backs Plan to Test Evolution. The New York Times, June 17, 1926, 2.
6. Etkind, A. 2008. Beyond Eugenics: The Forgotten Scandal of Hybridizing Humans and Apes. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. 39 (2): 205.
7. Ibid, 206.
8. Ibid, 209.
9. Ape-Child? Time. 8 (7), August 16, 1926.
10. Men and Apes. Time. 7 (26), June 28, 1926.
11. Richards, M. 2008. Artificial Insemination and Eugenics: Celibate Motherhood, Eutelegenesis and Germinal Choice. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. 39 (2): 211-221.

* Dr. Bergman is an Adjunct Associate Professor at the University of Toledo Medical School in Ohio.

Cite this article: Bergman, J. 2009. Human-Ape Hybridization: A Failed Attempt to Prove Darwinism. Acts & Facts. 38 (5): 12.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 06:51 am
@gungasnake,
Gunga Dim's fruit fly example is pure bullshit because it doesn't relate to how evolution works. There were no selective mechanisms which favored "mutated" fruit flies in reproduction.

This is what you'll always run into with Gunga Dim. He either doesn't understand evolutionary mechanisms, or he is blithely willing to lie about it.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 07:25 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Quote:
go back and read his original Dave, Hes been arguing from the side and is making claims AGINST the evidence for nat selection but replacing it with none of his own. Its a standard ploy in the Cretinist gangland. They will divert you with a proposition, claim that there is ample evidence to support their side, and then merely ignore presenting this evidence.
Anything hes presented is merely "quote mining"

I am not implying that the Earth is less than 1,000,000 years old.
I am satisfied with the evidence that it is c.4.6 billion years old,
but I was addressing the logical validity of your dictum, not Gunga's.





David
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 07:33 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
Spendius religion when it is applies to a child before he had reach the age of reason is not a dignified mean of social control in any way or in any manner.


Is there any dignified means of social control?

Quote:
True it is one of the means that humans had used for social controls and according to the cycle theory of human cultures when you have too large a percent of the total population that can see behind the curtain the result is a large scale power struggle resulting in destroying the society in question.


Which seems to concede the point for those not wishing to see society destroyed.

The evolutionists want to see all the kids having the abilty to see behind the curtain. Not that that is possible mind you. Behind the curtain there is another curtain.

Do you really think "enslaved" is the appropriate word? If anybody is enslaved it is those who are in awe of Darwin and that's an enslavement to their own sense of self esteem. They think they are "scientists" and the matter is understandable in junior school. And it's mushy.

It's a crutch for those who have engaged in activities such as wanking, sex outside marriage, adultery, homosexuality, abortion, cheating and all points self-indulgence. Not that it is any use because if there is a punishment to come for those things it will happen whatever they believe.

Evolution theory actually recommends unrestricted self indulgence although within its long process there is no homosexuality, abortion, adultery, marriage, manners, honesty or dignity.

I know people who won't watch wild life programmes on account of how horrible they find them. They get the heebie-jeebhies.

I don't think Jonestown has any bearing on the matter.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 08:00 am
Quote:
The researchers accepted the polygenetic theory of human evolution, concluding that orangutans should be crossed with humans of the "yellow race," gorillas with humans of the "black race," chimpanzees with the "white race," and gibbons with "the more brachycephalic peoples of Europe" (he probably meant Jews)....


I mean, you have to admire those fools, dontcha??? Granted they failed to prove the basic concept of evolutionism but it wasn't for lack of effort. Aside from everything else they apparently killed a number of African women by forcing them to try to bear gorilla hybrid babies. Naturally this did not bother their consciences to any extent worth mentioning since they viewed those women (as they viewed all people) as meat byproducts of random processes and not, as they might have in previous ages, as fellow creatures and children of God.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 08:09 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
Quote:
This isn't about Christianity or any other religion.
It is about teaching the world to laugh at evolution
and evolutionites so that there might not be any more ideological
doctrines like communism and Nazism based on it, or any more wars
which kill tens of millions of people on account of such ideologies.

If all of that makes God happy, so much the better.

Socialism is the filosofy of the criminal,
the poor who desire to rob the rich n middle class,
based upon Willie Sutton 's credo,
who when asked the reason that he robbed banks,
answered: "because that 's where the money is".
Socialists, be thay national or international or something else,
only like to put a good face on robbery, claim that its OK.
It is merely a thin veneer of rationalization,
but thay wanna commit the robbery NO MATTER WHAT.

The robbers will not have enuf interest in your denial
to abandon their quest to plunder; no chance.
In the future, if it were actually proven
that the Earth is of the age that u allege,
socialist abuses woud proceed apace, 100% unaffected.

What u posted about laffing at geologists or paleontologists
who 've dated the Earth to c.4.6 billion years has no basis in fact
that I can discern. To my mind, it is humorless.

Meaning no disrespect, Gunga,
denial of the age of the Earth, to my mind,
is analogous to the earlier dispute of the heliocentric theory
of the solar system, for spiritual reasons. I believe that a bishop
(whose name I don 't remember) was quoted as declaiming
that even if he were lifted up and SAW the Earth orbiting the Sun,
he STILL woud not believe it. He considered himself to be under
a moral duty to believe the geocentric theory.
No one need be an atheist to reject the geocentric theory
of the solar system nor of the universe; the same applies to the Earth's age.





David
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 08:11 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
I mean, you have to admire those fools, dontcha??? Granted they failed to prove the basic concept of evolutionism but it wasn't for lack of effort. Aside from everything else they apparently killed a number of African women by forcing them to try to bear gorilla hybrid babies. Naturally this did not bother their consciences to any extent worth mentioning since they viewed those women (as they viewed all people) as meat byproducts of random processes and not, as they might have in previous ages, as fellow creatures and children of God.
Youre a bigger fool than you let us to believe if you indeed believe that this crap is even real science.

MAcroevolution, as a mechanism, is only denied by the Cretinists because they deny everything that comes close to being evidence.

Hows the search for the ARK going?

ANy evidence of Cambrian "explosion" mammoths yet?

What have ya gotta say about all the fossil birds and prebirds theyve been finding throughout the world?

Any evidence of a FLOOD yet?

How fast was sea floor spreading going for 3 events of continental drift to have occured since the Vendean.

When did the Vendean begin (in gunga time?)

How come we can use isotopes to create energy but we cant use them to calculate time? (same equations govern both)
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 01:17 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
What u posted about laffing at geologists or paleontologists
who 've dated the Earth to c.4.6 billion years has no basis in fact
that I can discern. To my mind, it is humorless.


What do you mean Dave? It's hilarious. The Antique Roadshow in transcendental mode. How would you estimate the earth's value at auction today. In $s is okay.


OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 01:43 pm
@spendius,
David wrote:
Quote:
What u posted about laffing at geologists or paleontologists
who 've dated the Earth to c.4.6 billion years has no basis in fact
that I can discern. To my mind, it is humorless.



spendius wrote:
Quote:
What do you mean Dave? It's hilarious.

I honestly don 't think so.
I like the chuckles as much as the next guy,
but I just don 't see it.


spendius wrote:
Quote:

The Antique Roadshow in transcendental mode.
How would you estimate the earth's value at auction today. In $s is okay.

How woud Carl Sagan have put it?
Billion$ of billion$ . . . .

Did u get Sagan in England?
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/16/2024 at 08:48:25