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

@cameronleon,

Quote:

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.

Im snickring at your claims to be discussing something "with reasoning" ,yet you dont even know the name of melanin. I knew of melanin and from where the name derived when I was a wee nerdy kid. Most other people who like to read science would also know the difference between melamine and melanin. I think youre just trying to duck and cover by claiming "its merely a typo"
Im the master of typos but I try NEVER to screw up the subject matter of which I started the conversation (AS YOU DID) .
We all know about eye color, and as I spake before, the control of color in eyes and skin is a subject of a simple genetics expansion involving but 2 gene pairs and a "switch"

I see that your also having very little luck trying to bluff your way through in the "Is time linear" THREAD.

1 Reply

@BillW,

Quote:

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

Me too, Ive never seen any papers about fossils of any hominin or even hominid that even left a wee fossil tail. Thats the atavistic trait in action. The genes are turned off, but not gone from the genome.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

@cameronleon,
Quote:
Laws are discovered, not so invented by equations.

+

Laws are invented, and equations are discovered.

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:
@cameronleon,
Quote:
Laws are discovered, not so invented by equations.
+

Laws are invented, and equations are discovered.

Good catch C.I.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

equations are derived to explain something that measurably occurs in physics chemistry, biology etc.

(Im sure theres a waay better dictionary definition but if I look it up in a web dictionary, Ill lose my train here)

1 Reply

None of the great apes have tails. I suspect the genus homo never had a tail.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

yet they still carry the gene sets that describe "tilness" So probably the source of the atavism predates the splitting of the Tarsiers, from the pongids from Hominids

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I believe equations are a way to explain our environment, and used as a tool.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

all scientific laws are usually part of theories and are usually described with an equation. Theories arent explained with equations.
EG, Hubbles Law, is mathematically describing a relationship, so does Snells Law, and Law of Refrecation. Some folks seem to think that theres a Hierarchy is certainty that passes theory and attains "Law status". Thats wrong, a whole bunch of laws can be fit inside a theory. There could be hundreds of laws (most as equations) in a theory, Like Hardy Weinberg, Hjolstrums Law, Law of Superposition(the equation of which is an expnsion), .

Quahog stated that I stated something that I did NOT. He was again trying to incorrectly rearrange facts of what I said)

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I Forgot to eenclude Ze MONGIES , zey haf taillss

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I thought Einstein's theory of relativity was a mathematical equation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations
BTW, his equations go right over my head about a 1000+ miles.
Had a very short exposure to differential calculus in college, and never used it since. If I remember correctly, it had to do with inventory control.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:

farmerman, I have often wondered just exactly what type of tail we had
Me too, Ive never seen any papers about fossils of any hominin or even hominid that even left a wee fossil tail. Thats the atavistic trait in action. The genes are turned off, but not gone from the genome.

Now that I think about it none of the great apes had anything but the vestige of a tail. I think that's true? That would indicate it is a long time since it was an exterior appendage.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:
@cameronleon,
Quote:
Laws are discovered, not so invented by equations.
+

Laws are invented, and equations are discovered.

Good point ci!

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I Forgot to eenclude Ze MONGIES , zey haf taillss

They do appear from from time to time in humans also.

0 Replies

@BillW,

yeh, the atavism is actually an evolutionary calendar. Apes split from the monkey clade in mid Oligocene (bout 30 MY), whereas bonobo/chimps split from humans only 5 to 7 MY. Each has a genetic marker that gets closer to humans . Tails rom the monkies and fused chromosomes for bonobos and humans.
The vestige that we carry, I believe, is the coccyx (cockyx cocky six) select one. A cocky six has a buncha vertebra vestige nodes. I aint a natomy guy so Im not sure and the wifi in the place had me locked up already

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

relativity (both of em) have tens of equations that describe several laws . E=Mc^^ comes out of special relativity s descriptive conclusion ( he said to Roosevelt in a letter, "If ze theory is right, this relationship (law) should work since its an extension of Newtons second law AT LIGHT SPEED)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

relativity (both of em) have tens of equations that describe several laws . E=Mc^^ comes out of special relativity s descriptive conclusion ( he said to Roosevelt in a letter, "If ze theory is right, this relationship (law) should work since its an extension of Newtons second law AT LIGHT SPEED)

The Einstein gravitational wave theory had equations for 100 years but is now finally proven:

General relativity has emerged as a highly successful model of gravitation and cosmology, which has so far passed many unambiguous observational and experimental tests. However, there are strong indications the theory is incomplete.[198] The problem of quantum gravity and the question of the reality of spacetime singularities remain open.[199] Observational data that is taken as evidence for dark energy and dark matter could indicate the need for new physics.[200] Even taken as is, general relativity is rich with possibilities for further exploration. Mathematical relativists seek to understand the nature of singularities and the fundamental properties of Einstein's equations,[201] while numerical relativists run increasingly powerful computer simulations (such as those describing merging black holes).[202] In February 2016, it was announced that the existence of gravitational waves was directly detected by the Advanced LIGO team on September 14, 2015.[73][203][204] A century after its introduction, general relativity remains a highly active area of research.[205] -Wikipedia

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

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

I was pointing how ridiculous was your message saying that the trace of the muscles attachment on those ancient bones were "very easy to see".

Look, your imagination is incredible and I don't have intentions to perturb such a ingenuity of yours.

The problem is that you want to play the "expert" when my guess is that you have never made a single experiment or field work.

I did it.

I made experiments where rustic or simple instruments and materials were used, but what it rules is the "method" which is the essential part in any experiment.

How many individuals lacked of such muscle attachment on the bones? One fossil? two?

Where those bones were found? Under others with that attachment clearly seen showing the former trace that muscles were there?

Did you pull fossils from one area and compared with fossils from another area but in higher layer of dirt and you say: "oh, these bones belong to a recent era because come from a higher layer of dirt", and silly conclusions like that?

You dudes make of science a comedy.

Use reasoning.

You lack of reasoning.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Im snickring at your claims to be discussing something "with reasoning" ,yet you dont even know the name of melanin. I knew of melanin and from where the name derived when I was a wee nerdy kid. Most other people who like to read science would also know the difference between melamine and melanin. I think youre just trying to duck and cover by claiming "its merely a typo"

To say one name instead of another by mistaking it by their similarity is also a typo.

You look like an idiot insisting in attacking such kind of mistakes from others.

Review your messages and you will find out that me and others will "guess" what are you writing because you make lots of spelling errors. It appears that English is not a subject you passed successfully in elementary school.

But that is not needed to prove you wrong, for proving you incorrect reading your nonsense is enough.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

yeh, the atavism is actually an evolutionary calendar. Apes split from the monkey clade in mid Oligocene (bout 30 MY), whereas bonobo/chimps split from humans only 5 to 7 MY. Each has a genetic marker that gets closer to humans . Tails rom the monkies and fused chromosomes for bonobos and humans.

This topic inside the discussion rose up because evolutionists claim that humans had fur, lost the fur, had hair instead, lost the hair, recovered hair, hair thicker in cold areas, hair thinner in hot areas, etc.

Then, somehow you came with the peppermint moths, to "justify" the idea of obtaining-losing-obtaining again same characteristics in humans.

In both examples from above, you failed miserably because you never even attempted to defend directly the evolutionist claim about fur and hair. You know that such a claim is just nonsense.

With the peppermint moth the conclusion is that darker and lighter ones coexisted and no changes getting darker and getting lighter ever happened. It is just variations in percents of a population.

_____________________________________

Now, we are in the same topic but with other examples given by you.

Your other claim is that no signs of a muscle being attached to ancient bones was observed in certain ancient bone(s).

Who knows how and why you are relating those bones without muscle attachment trace to other bones with such a trace.

Who knows how you know which one is the "ancestor" of the other one.

Do those bones come from the same zone? How many of those bones you have found with the muscle attachment trace and without the trace in question?

What causes you to think that humans lost (ha ha ha ha... sorry, can't avoid laughing of this sh*t invented by you) what causes you to think that humans lost a muscle in the legs?

Explain how those humans did to perform without that muscle in their legs.

To be more precise, what muscle are you talking about?

3 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know