Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

@glitterbag,

Quahog was just a loony, I don't think he ever denied the Holocaust.

0 Replies

@cameronleon,

as I said ,when your disagreement regarding body hair began to unfold, you dont seem to know anything about atavistic traits or expressions in species. I used other examples beside reaquiring body hair. You then claim it was off topic. Perhaps if you just take a bit o time to read some Ernst Mayr or even Paul Erlich (not the "magic bullet Erlich but the evolutionary biologist). Id suggest that you take on some of Steve Gould's stuff but that requires a bit more geeky involvement than youd wanna give.
So, in order to "bring you up to speed" so we can discuss this entire evolutionary imperative in light of Dollo' Law without me getting hoarse, heres a 10 year old paper by Collins and Cipriani about one form of a single atavistic trait . The entire topic is right in line with your limited attempts at "Science denial". Its really quite readable.

AN ATAVISTIC TRAIT IN LIGHT OF DOLLO"S LAW

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

as I said ,when your disagreement regarding body hair began to unfold, you dont seem to know anything about atavistic traits or expressions in species. I used other examples beside reaquiring body hair. You then claim it was off topic. Perhaps if you just take a bit o time to read some Ernst Mayr or even Paul Erlich (not the "magic bullet Erlich but the evolutionary biologist). Id suggest that you take on some of Steve Gould's stuff but that requires a bit more geeky involvement than youd wanna give.

Said what?!

Steve Gould?

That poor lunatic who wrote an entire book comparing evolution with a baseball game?!

Are you out of your mind?!

Enough!

Repent of such a blasphemy of yours.

Steve Gould... ha ha ha ha....

Ste...ve...Go...l..d.. ha ha ha ha ha....

Nothing, read these words of mine very clearly... nothing at all backs up the idea of humans having fur, replaced later by hair, losing hair, recovering it back, and other beliefs of yours obtained by following dudes who compare their religious theory with a sports game.

You are a complete ignorant because you have learn everything wrong from the very beginning.

Show here the evidence backing up humans with fur, later the evidence that they lost the fur and hair was the main concentration, later show the evidence that humans lost their hair, later show the evidence that humans recovered the lost hair.

Come on.

Stop talking sh*t and now is time for "show".

No showing of evidence means that you have been defending sh*t all the time.

Period.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

Talk about hair and evolution.
https://www.thoughtco.com/evolution-of-hair-color-1224779

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

So, in order to "bring you up to speed" so we can discuss this entire evolutionary imperative in light of Dollo' Law without me getting hoarse, heres a 10 year old paper by Collins and Cipriani about one form of a single atavistic trait . The entire topic is right in line with your limited attempts at "Science denial". Its really quite readable.

The point is very simple.

The so called Dollo' s Law is just a hypothesis.

From the evolutionist side, they want to add "exceptions" to that law.

So, the evolutionists accept the hypothesis known as Dollo's Law when they just add exceptions to the assumed "rule".

When the only thing you have found is bones, how the hell you know that muscles in the legs have been lost and recovered back? And, how many of those bones have you really studied? lest say, from a population at least of two hundred individuals at each stage?

Hello?

Because if you find just a jaw and from it you "reconstruct" an entire body with details as hair and color of eyes, please allow me to clarify you that or you are an idiot or that you have been a fraudulent man all your life.

You are free to believe as much crap others tell you, but without evidence whatever they say is not science but crap.

This is to say, when you come here with the ideologies of dudes who have never ever presented evidence but that they solely have wrote "their personal opinions" of the bones and their origin, and you try to convince others that your beliefs are "science", well, sorry, but the one with the strong scientific position here it's me.

I'm from Missouri, you'll have to show me.

Why wasting time discussing "theories" when the evidence never backs up whatever you stand for?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Talk about hair and evolution.

Hope you find very soon the link for "evolution of the eye"

It happens that evolutionists invented their idea of millions of years of evolution of eyes in humans, the color, etc.

But, very recently, about a decade ago, an eye doctor invented a curious artifact. It is a laser machine that removes the melamine of the eyes and the person who used to have dark brown eyes ends with clear blue eyes.

So, this doctor with his laser toy has demonstrated that the silly evolutionists have talked a lot and proved nothing.

And let me tell something more.

After the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs, which were dropped not to win the war but to experiment the effects in humans, the US sent lots of scientists with the purpose of studying what happen to humans when exposed to that radiation at different levels.

About the eyes, it was found the same effects, that people with dark color eyes ended with clear blue eyes after being exposed to a certain level of radiation.

Unfortunately for you and the readers of your links, the web pages you are referring to all the time. do not include the discoveries I am writing you right here, because these discoveries turn down the whole fantasy invented by the theory of evolution.

So, keep being happy with your beliefs. I feel sad seeing you living outside of reality, but I can also see that you are very happy by being such an ignorant.

So, be happy...

2 Replies

@cameronleon,

Yes, I believe eyes evolved like everything else on this planet.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

1 Reply

@cameronleon,

you are a "gift to informed people". Your undertqndings of science as you see it is hilarious.

1. Eyes dont contain any MELAMINE. We make plastic dishes from this nitrogen trimer. (Its very close to cyanide). I think the planet Melmac is named after Melamine

2. Its MELANIN which is a pigment that is genetically controlled .Any first year genetics student can run a gene expression expansion problem where , based on the 2 genes that control melanin expression, can calculate the 5 possibilities of eye colors, combined with the 16 colors of skin color. This is all done by two measly genes

nd an "on " and "off" switch.

Your total understandings of genetics and evolution is really funny. I know you believe youre making sense but believe me, Ive been in the business for over 40 years now and we often have "Creationist set up" comedians at symposia and conferences and people laugh so hard at stuff like youre presenting that they wet their pants.

2 Replies

@cameronleon,

"Laws" in science usually are expressed as equations, Dollo's Law included.
If you understand things like Taylor expansions or Hardy Weinberg expansions, you can compute how atavistic traits can re-occur whil still preserving the overall trail of macro-evolutionary .
I enjoy your phony criticism of Steven Gould. Hes often used gqmes theory qnd footbqll qnd baseball (as well as Renaissance Architecture and movies to try to get ideas across to people). His argument has always been well backed up and evidenced (whereas Creationists have yet to present any evidence of their beliefs ). Creationists feel that using mere gainsay of an opponents position is really really evidence.
See ya Quahog , were going into town to eat and talk sense.
I suggest that you try the same, itd be a new experience.
remember, melamine=picnic plates
melanin= universal pigment in all animals

1 Reply

@cameronleon,

Quote:

When the only thing you have found is bones, how the hell you know that muscles in the legs have been lost and recovered back? And, how many of those bones have you really studied? lest say, from a population at least of two hundred individuals at each stage?

.

We can easily see where muscles attach to bones and , when derivative species fossils are found in successive strata, we can also easily see where muscle attachments have shrunk or have even disappeared. Then we can see that still later on, after even more geologic time has passed, the early trait has returned as a micro evolutionary trait,(atavism in ACTION) . This we can see in the later muscle attachment nodes on the fossil bones.
Had you known this is a fact of discoveries in the paleo-anatomy of fossil animals, I dont think you would have asked such a silly question.
What do you know about Profim Lysenko??

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman, Thanks for the education.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I think Cameron has given up trying to convince folks of his evidence-free way of thinking .
Well be home before Halloween, its getting a bit cool living on the boat .The heating system has gone through several 35 pound bottles of propane, and because the dew points are getting low, the windows topside are always steamed up. Were hoping we can coast south nd pick up some wee bit a Gulf Sttream heat on the hull. WE got so loving Canadian radio(they talk about marine life and history nd have some entertaining shows). I have a wifi radio at hom in my studio that I keep tuned to CBC St John.
Were gonna be radio-free as we enter US waters so we can avoidhaving to listen to news about our douche bag president and his dysfunctional regime and how he keeps talking in superlatives about himself.
But thats another thread

0 Replies

@farmerman,

[quote="farmerman"
Many Atavistic traits are mostly those that'd be considered to be adaptive response to environmental conditions. While not an actual display of micro evolution, they do display the visible means of natural selection. Statistical increases of other atavistic traits could also be accomplished by selection FOR what would have been a recessive trait (like people with tails interbreeding as an experiment in genetic drift
[/quote]

farmerman, I have often wondered just exactly what type of tail we had? Was it for wrapping around limbs, swiping away flies, scratching our backs or simply, just decorative. Of course, I'm not talking about the remainent of tail that occurs occasionally even today, but when it was a tool. I believe it became useless as we got more utility use of our hands and tools. It was probably eliminated because the females didn't select males with tails, ie, natural selection.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Yes, I believe eyes evolved like everything else on this planet.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Lol.

You always make my day.

You never pay attention to what others are telling you, but you keep posting and posting links "proving your point".

I love it.

You remind me my brother.

The first time my brother took my father's car without his permission and we (about 7 guys) went inside the car for a ride.

My brother didn't know much about gears in a manual transmission car. So, he put first, changed to second, and there we went throughout the city... my brother never used the brakes... we were making turns moving fast to one side of the car balancing weight so the car won't roll over its roof at each corner... we were screaming for about 15 minutes all way long but my brother kept his eyes on the street pressing the accelerator and with the hands glued to the steering wheel...

My father saw us coming fast returning home and he stood in front of us in the middle of the street. My brother finally pressed the clutch and the brake.

All of us came out of the car with pale faces wishing never ever ride when my brother is the driver. Five minutes later we were laughing without stop for that adventure.

Cicerone, you have a strong faith in evolution. I truly respect that.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

you are a "gift to informed people". Your undertqndings of science as you see it is hilarious.

1. Eyes dont contain any MELAMINE. We make plastic dishes from this nitrogen trimer. (Its very close to cyanide). I think the planet Melmac is named after Melamine

2. Its MELANIN which is a pigment that is genetically controlled .Any first year genetics student can run a gene expression expansion problem where , based on the 2 genes that control melanin expression, can calculate the 5 possibilities of eye colors, combined with the 16 colors of skin color. This is all done by two measly genes

And this is the difference between you evolutionist dudes, with others who discuss with reasoning.

You believe that you are more "intellectual" when you find a typo in the other's message.

Look, in several occasions when I reply a message, their text shows lots of mistakes, all kind of mistakes, mistakes that I ignore because are not affecting the discussion, and I understand what the other wants to say. So I keep going with the discussion using the right word but without correcting what the opposite participant wrote, and neither mentioning about it.

This is called "chivalry", and is the base of good manners in a good discussion wherever you go.

But, you wrote two unnecessary paragraphs about my typo and for what?

For nothing.

For nothing because your theory of "controlled melanin" is sh*t.

Look what this doctor does with his laser toy to "your millions of years of eye color evolution".

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

We can easily see where muscles attach to bones and , when derivative species fossils are found in successive strata, we can also easily see where muscle attachments have shrunk or have even disappeared.

Show the pictures.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

"Laws" in science usually are expressed as equations, Dollo's Law included.
If you understand things like Taylor expansions or Hardy Weinberg expansions, you can compute how atavistic traits can re-occur whil still preserving the overall trail of macro-evolutionary .
I enjoy your phony criticism of Steven Gould. Hes often used gqmes theory qnd footbqll qnd baseball (as well as Renaissance Architecture and movies to try to get ideas across to people). His argument has always been well backed up and evidenced (whereas Creationists have yet to present any evidence of their beliefs ). Creationists feel that using mere gainsay of an opponents position is really really evidence

Laws are discovered, not so invented by equations.

I discovered a law of perception. This law states that we can perceive solely the present with our senses and instruments.

This law I have discovered has no exceptions.

I know better than many about what a law of science is.

About Steve Gold, his baseball game and evolution, show a Home Run.

Go ahead, I want to see it. What evolutionary event has completed a circle or cycle... and much better, specially for both of you, whom of you have completed being a psycho?

1 Reply

@BillW,

Quote:

farmerman, I have often wondered just exactly what type of tail we had?

Educated guess of pictorial resemblance of one and a half million years old evolutionist ancestor

http://powerpictures.crystalgraphics.com/photo/illustration_of_a_red_devil_with_arms_crossed_and_cg1p91974066c_th.jpg

0 Replies

@cameronleon,

Quote:

Laws are discovered, not so invented by equations.

I take it that you are NOT speaker of English as your first language. If you notice, I did not claim that an equation invents a law. A LAW, in science, I said, is usually EXPRESSED as an equation, not a panoply of evidence, ( as is a THEORY).

1 Reply

@cameronleon,

Quote:

Show the pictures.

??? Im not running a class, Id suggest you find any book of anatomy and look at musculature

1 Reply

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know