100 things which evolutionites hate

I was always looking for a source in which someone had compiled all these "scientific points" that are supposed to embarrass science but really dont. These Creationist "arguments" are really feeble attempts at cobbling together old arguments and poor examples to "make a point" that has no evidence to support it at all.

The study of evolution has grown and blossomed into a strong, heavily evidenced and experimentally based discipline that (in many cases) has celebrated many of these frauds in our historical account. We don't run from the "Univeral Flood" story, instead we celebrate why the evidence shows how this is untrue.

However, most of these are actually examples of where science has "cleared up" the old garbage. For example, it was the hard working scientists who cleared up the "Piltdown Man" hoax that was perpetrated onto an unknowing public. The perps included several folks who were original frauds, AND IT INCLUDED a priest scientist who, whether knowingly an accomplice or not, added credulity to the fraud.It was also a questioning scientist t the NY Museum of NAtural History who , by using old fashioned forensics, cleared up the"Fake bird fossil" that was a "married" fossil that was manufactured by humans e by gluing together and staining two fossils of totally different times. The scientist who xposed the fraud (perped by a"fossil specimen salesman" from Lioning China") did it by compRING THE SEDIMENT CHRACTERISTICS OF THE MATRIX of each of the married segments, and chemical analysis of the glue nd "shellc coatings on the "fossil".
SCience cannot guarantee against cheaters and frauds, but, so far, its been able to discover and reveal where they've been active.

NEAT, thank you gunga. Im sending this to several colleagues who teach paleo and evolutionary biology.
I know one friend who will probably make a test question that asks the student to :pick any 10 of these "Facts" and debunk them in a carefully considered and evidenced discussion.

love that the list of 100 things only goes to 93.

What it really is, is a list of things that proves the author has no clue what evolution is. I mean seriously, did you see the explanation of Natural Selection?

Too funny.

Do not vote up this abomination.

Thank you.

Thank you, thank you. Try the roast beef its delicious.
Gunga'll be here all week

There is something that is 100% correct in that web page, only the ignorant believe in evolution.

you are correct in one thing . Only the ignorant take the time to actually try to learn .
Those of you who already "know everything" are certainly not ignorant regarding science. That's because the connections never enter your mind as evidence piece of knowledge.
To you, science is to be disdained, held in contempt.
The ignorant scientists use anything they can ;y their hands on to learn. That includes the myths that surround Creation and Intelligent design.

Ignorance is why many scientists get up in the morning and happily trek off to their work.

Naaahhhh...

Ignorance is not only the absence of knowledge about something, but it's also wrong learning

And wrong learning is what the theory of evolution is about.

Face it. It started with the thinking (long before Darwin) that the current species come from simpler, worst and inferior ancestors.

Evolutionists found out that their theory was crap to the square and changed it into a "New-Darwinian" theory where the motto was to brainwash people with the idea that the general meaning of the word "evolution" simply means "change".

But, even so, people didn't buy the idea, because returning back to smoke signals from mountain to mountain instead of using telephones as a communication system, such was indeed a "change" but never "evolution".

Then evolutionist had no choice but to keep the word "evolution" in Biology as a technical word. But, they have a "revival" when they misinterpreted that microbes and viruses become more "resistant" to antibiotics and chemicals (even radiation) because an evolutionary step, where its new status becomes favorable against the aggressive new environment, making it "superior".

Sadly, a scrutiny on the observations, shows that the famous" resistant" of microbes is nothing but mutations where the affected organism loses and gains characteristics.

For example, a bacterium eating the sugars of our bodies, after a bad antibiotics treatment becomes an immune system cells predator... but stops eating the sugars. Its physical structure was changed because the chemicals and the organism found a way to survive changing its diet.

This is to say, the mutation change its internal and external characteristics and behavior, and by no means this phenomenon can be considered that this organism's new status is now "superior" than its former one.

At the long run, in its former status the bacterium as a "parasite" lived longer inside the host, but in the later status, both -the parasite and host- are destined to extinction.

You see, the whole theory of evolution is a loser by this simple fact: Everything decays.

The whole elements in the universe are in a continued process of decay, and by consequence, the stars, the planets, the rocks, the living species, everything is trapped in this tendency.

Then, there is an arrow, and for this reason this new ideology of evolution by simply calling mutations as "change" is 100% illusory.

The true and crude reality is that there is an arrow, and the arrow is decay.

This is absolutely false, and is characteristic of the ignorance of the bible thumpers who rant about evolution. For example, the wooly mammoth and the wooly rhinoceros both displayed a superior adaptation to the periglacial conditions of the ice ages. When the climate changed to the point that the glaciers retreated from the Eurasian and North American land masses, they died out because their adaptation had ceased to be an advantage and had become a liability. The religious loonies seem always to construct arguments which shocase their ignorance of science and evolutionary theory.

There is so much crap in your post that I doubt that I will even respond. (Much of hat you've posted is actually a lie), eg
Evolution didn't find failure in natural selection to adopt "neo Darwinism". It was that the ADDITION of genetics and embroylohical development AND the burgeoning fossil record had allowed the adoption of several alternatives(most of which were subsequently dropped because they were unfalsifiable)

Keep your counsel if it helps you" get through the night". I really have no concern what you "think". Just dont try to state "what is" based on your silly worldview. Science will just keep movin on and piling up evidence and experiments without any of your religious beliefs.
IF you don't understand science , don't try to make it sound like you have an alternative cause you really have NOTHING of value to propose.

Try to uphold (scientifically) the statements in the above "100 points" crap. Youll leave a skid mark after the first one I imagine

It's just breathtaking the idiocy he posted. I guess he goes to some bible-thumper's web site which provides him with that stupidity.

This is my favorite . Why does life persist?

Extinction is a mechanism of evolution. Extinction and decay are totally different concepts

it's false that evolution talks about "superior" and "inferior". Creationists do that. Evolution is about what survives, not what is "superior". If a mutation causes greater reproductive success, that is what counts. There's no moral dimension to it.

As MJ has just pointed out, there is no moral dimension to scientific inquiry. I would add to his statement that an adaptation which confers reproductive advantage in one set of conditions may fail to provide that advantage in another set of conditions--which is why i referred to the wooly mammoth and the wooly rhinoceros. Natural selection doesn't "care" who wins or loses or why.

Yeh but Ive got a paleo buddy who "keeps score on mammoths"

Hes been tracking stratigraphy and C14 dates of Channel island mammoths, Columbian/Imperial mammoths, and Wrangel island specimens.
SO far his conclusion has been that they just shouldnt have died outcause there was nothing wrong with em and there was plenty of food and not much predation (mybe the Imperial )

Theres a good story needing told about all these elephants

I can read lots of replies from the bunch of ignorant who are not happy with my excellent presentation from above, of the origin of the superfluous theory of evolution.

So, in order to illustrate specially for them, about their wrong learning (read: ignorance), I will write the following, which is the dialogue that happened between Cuvier and Geoffroy at Jardin des Plantes.

Cuvier takes the "catastrophist" argument against the "evolutionary" argument of Geoffroy.

I will cut off a great part of the beginning of the dialogue, were Buffon's ideas are also discussed, but what I will post if enough to prove that the ideology of those years about the evolution of the species, was that we are descendants of simpler, worse, and inferior ancestors.

For this reason, and no other one, this theory acquired the word "evolution" in its title.

Pay attention to the words of Geoffroy.



Ladies and gentlemen, the exposition from above is clear.

The base foundation of the theory of evolution was the belief that we are descendants of simpler, worse and inferior ancestors.

You can add whatever you want to this erroneous primeval belief of the theory of evolution, but this theory per se still is a complete fallacy.

Are you referring to mammoth, or wooly mammoth? Keep in mind that the short-faced bear died out, and that it was probably as a result of competition with brown bears and black bears, rather than a failure to adapt to conditions.

Cuvier and Geoffrey were debating several decades before Darwin. They are irrelecant. Their points of view are irrelevant and were based on very primitive knowledge of natural history. Evoluti0on as a science starts with Darwin, and does not consider organisms superior or inferior. You're simply wrong, Carlos.

Farmer, ths suspician amongst paleoanthropologists is that the American megafauna were done in by early humans arriving. One of the first modern archaeological finds was a Clovis point from a hypothesized atlatl dart founrt embedded in a mammoth bone, so they clarly existed here at the same time and were clearly hunted. Seems to me I remember evidence being found of a mammoth mammoth drive over a cliff somewhere, as a hunting technique. What's your colleague's take on human-mammoth predation?