65
   

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

 
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Oct, 2017 09:58 am
In other words, a bot! All replies are programmed and predictable, being equally wrong!
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Oct, 2017 10:02 am
@BillW,
bot "ish" , perhaps
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Oct, 2017 10:03 am
@farmerman,
I will accept this compromise, for now Arrow
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sun 29 Oct, 2017 10:25 am
@BillW,
How about "buttish?"
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Oct, 2017 10:48 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

How about "buttish?"


.....and, that is a polite way of putting it. I was trying to stay away from proof of negative personality evolution!
0 Replies
 
TomTomBinks
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Oct, 2017 04:41 pm
@farmerman,
...you're the one doing most of the explaining and I'm the one getting frustrated as a spectator. It's sad that someone can be that devoted to such a twisted worldview. I wonder if he's the result of some trauma or abuse as a child.
cameronleon
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 29 Oct, 2017 04:57 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Really?, do we have a No bell Prize waiting for you? You seem to be getting a free education from the folks herein but its not" taking". I really should just dismiss you as ineducable.
Youre beliefs may be funny but theyre also sad because you have absolutely no idea about what your speaking and youre just "making believe" that you do. Who ya trying to impress with your crap?


Nobel Prize uses to be a reward based on honesty when reviewing the candidates. But after knowing that Al Gore and Barack Obama received the award, no doubt that the institution is actually corrupted.

Show me that the horse actually have evolved.

I can show you in a simple comparison that the horse has lost characteristics in greater percent than gaining new ones, and this process of losing more and gaining less is called DEGENERATION.

Quote:
Point and copy where exactly I said the above? How can we show muscle attachment nodes on any end of bones here no muscle even exists?? I said that wqe can trace where qwhere insertions and distal ends of muscles leave scars on bones (I asnsewered your question to how we knew where bones even attach, and I said that "its easy".


In simple words, you have no idea of what was the muscle in question. Lets check below.

Quote:
In my career Ive used many examples of atavisms in molluscs and Athifagusleaves that changed through geologic time and re-exerted their original leaf style after having first been statistically over grown with other leaf styles in a cooling climate. It, just like the wings of the peppered moth or the primate muscles of the clavicle and collar bones, there was a statistically significant variation in the population that could re assert itself by selection as the environment changes. Your "degeneration" when genetics is considered shows that, a trait may be totally wiped out but the trait STILL REMAINS ON THE GENOME. Are you able to absorb that fact or do you deny genetics too??


It is clear that you lost the case of the missing muscle in humans.

The case of the moths has been solved already as a confusion of deluded evolutionists who can't differentiate their fantasy of light moths "getting darker because pollution" and statistics showing that light color moths and dark color moths always coexisted.

Very well, you have here the clavicule
http://img-aws.ehowcdn.com/560x560/photos.demandstudios.com/getty/article/6/108/CC000779.jpg

Lets find the muscle you were talking about

Is this the muscle you are referring to?

Subclavius muscle
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/Subclavius_muscle_frontal2.png/250px-Subclavius_muscle_frontal2.png

Or this one?

Conoid ligament (upper left)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Gray326.png/250px-Gray326.png

Perhaps this one?

Trapezoid ligament. Center top

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Gray326.png/250px-Gray326.png

What about this one?

Pectoralis major.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Gray410.png/250px-Gray410.png

Or, come on, try with this one.

Sternocleidomastoid muscle

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Sternocleidomastoideus.png/250px-Sternocleidomastoideus.png

All pictures credits to Healthy Living AZ Central and Wikipedia

What is the missing muscle in question?

Look that it has been observed that a human can live and perform when the clavicle has been removed, but what about the muscles?

You affirm of the missing muscle because no traces of it attached to the clavicle was seen. Specify what was the muscle in question.

_______________________________________

Give me the name of the mollusc that shows certain characteristics first, and later lost them to recover them later on.

What areas those molluscs were found for comparison.

______________________________________________

Also, provide the entire evaluation made, if others muscles or parts of the body show differences. This is to say, the T-Rex lost the giant teeth but developed a beak with tiny teeth. The T-Rex also lost its tail, etc.

To mention one part of the body is not enough, you must provide the evaluation of the whole parts found in each particular case.

I don't buy your story, and I don't buy the chronology presented by evolutionists.

First, the facts.

Provide the requested information, the muscle name, the entire evaluation of the whole bones, the zones where the bones were found.

Very simple request. No explanation is asked.








farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Oct, 2017 05:01 pm
@TomTomBinks,
I actually enjoy many of the debates , mny oof the deeply religious will accept many of the facts we can bring forward. Then, after mulling them over, they develop arguments consistent with their worldviews. I enjoy efending what the discovris and facts of science mean . Unfortunately Cam . like the ol gungasnake, only repeat mantras that degrade into harangues.
I think Cam feels his worldview is being attacked, (Funamentalists dont give an inch for logic and discovery). They just deny and deny and claim their myths are facts .

You dont see but two or three textbooks for Creation SCience and ZERO peer reviewed papers of evidence or repeatable experiments
cameronleon
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 29 Oct, 2017 05:17 pm
@TomTomBinks,
Quote:


I thought I had... There is variation within a species. Lots of variation. One of the many variations is resistance to the antibiotic. The antibiotic (a poison) kills the vast majority of the bacteria. They are dead. Gone. The ones that survived, the resistant ones, reproduce. The new population now has the resistance.
Can I be any more clear? Are there some words here you don't understand?


But this is the point.

You say that the offspring acquired resistance, but how?

By miracle?

Magic?

Like to say, you have water in a small glass container (8oz), you squeeze one half of lime to it and you add 1 1/2 tea spoon of sugar. You taste it. The flavor is somehow lime with water. You take a small spoon and you stir the water and now the flavor is a kind of sweet.

This is the process, the flavor of the lime, the flavor of the sugar, the stirring, at the end you have a tasted refreshment.

Now, you go to more specifics, and describe the solution in lime juice, the elements found in sugar granules, and so forth.

When I request from you to describe the process, the question points to what happened?

You say bacteria become more "resistant" but that is not an explanation but a conclusion of yours without any valid back up. Yes, the bacteria is not affected anymore but this is not an indicative that the bacteria became more "resistant".

Apparently you have been believing in evolution doctrines by faith alone, this is to say, evolution is your religion.

If you really know the process of why bacteria is not affected by the second treatment with the same antibiotics, then post it here.

Otherwise, you are a very good follower of the scientific religion called "Evolution".

0 Replies
 
cameronleon
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 29 Oct, 2017 05:32 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
I actually enjoy many of the debates , mny oof the deeply religious will accept many of the facts we can bring forward. Then, after mulling them over, they develop arguments consistent with their worldviews. I enjoy efending what the discovris and facts of science mean . Unfortunately Cam . like the ol gungasnake, only repeat mantras that degrade into harangues.
I think Cam feels his worldview is being attacked, (Funamentalists dont give an inch for logic and discovery). They just deny and deny and claim their myths are facts .

You dont see but two or three textbooks for Creation SCience and ZERO peer reviewed papers of evidence or repeatable experiments


Don't play the "superior mind" here.

You call yourself a man of science and post here messages full of crap.

I say they are crap because it is clear that you have never ever reviewed what you post in your messages.

What is the muscle that was missing and not signs of it was found in the clavicle?

I'm not denying anything, I am asking you what was the muscle you are talking about?

Do you think that five or six ignorant dudes jointing together to attack my person will make you right?

Lol.

Here, this is a forum of science, and definitively you have no knowledge of this specific branch of science, regardless of what you pretend to be in these forums.

Your babbling is not helping you at all.

If you were honest, you should say you need some time to collect the information, or provide the link to obtain the information, and so forth.

But, arrogance is your flag, and you weren't prepare to a serious debate about DEGENERATION against EVOLUTION.

I state firmly that you have no proof at all of evolutionary steps when I am proving that the process of the elements in the universe and the living species on earth is DECAY AND DEGENERATION.

Before you leave this world, reconsider your position because you have been defending a fake theory. Use your last years to reconcile yourself with reality.









farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 29 Oct, 2017 05:56 pm
@cameronleon,
Quote:
I can show you in a simple comparison that the horse has lost characteristics in greater percent than gaining new ones, and this process of losing more and gaining less is called DEGENERATION.
Please, Im all ears. Id love to hear you finally come out with something that you consider evidence of anything.

Quote:
In simple words, you have no idea of what was the muscle in question
In simple words of one syllable. I didnt ever mention anything about musculature until AFTER your last post dippy. I earlier briefly mentioned the clavicle bones of primates a few pages back to complement my discussions of atavism. (Which by the way you still do not get because you only posted a bunch of graphics of the pectoral rch modern humans. ATAVISM is an evolutionary tool as well as a response, and is therefore assessed through TIME.

Ill wait till that simple fact sinks in

Quote:
The case of the moths has been solved already as a confusion of deluded evolutionists who can't differentiate their fantasy of light moths "getting darker because pollution" and statistics showing that light color moths and dark color moths always coexisted.
Youre getting senile. Dont you recall we already discussed this very point and I said YES, THAT IS WHAT ATAVISTIC TRAITS ARE (The secret of evolution is use it or stow it).
The evolutionary expression of atavism is based upon the statistical presence of phenotypic polymorphism. In other words a species usually has wide variability (many species display sexual dimorphism or polymorphism as well as environmental polymorphism). When a species adapts one of these forms exclusively, then other polymorphs go extinct. So your entire denial of temporal variation of something like body hair would also hve to deny your explanation of "degeneration" genetic variability (repeating it yet again), even after it goes extinct, remains in the genome as fossil genes. Remember , we had this discussion (OR dont you read anything but cereal boxes?)

BTW, since youve avoided it throughout, Id like to remind you that the term "degeneration" is one of the "secret handshake" terms coined and used by "Creation Scientist" G Mac Ready Price and back in the 1926. It was scarfed up nd used in place of micro and macro evolution. It was, even used by the defense in the Edwards v Aguillard case in the US Supreme Court where "Scientific Creationism" was ultimately decided by the court to be religion and therefore could not be taught in Louisiana Public SChools as SCIENCE, but you guys never give up.
Things have moved along in science many many miles since those days when it was still possible to cobble a semi- convincing argument about "fully Formed species" and "special Creation' . Today with the addition of genetics , 80 more years of paleontology, all aided by computers, as well as molecular level embryology; these are all supportive of most of Darwins Theory of natural selection, Creqtionist thinking is just another batch of myths told round the campfire.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sun 29 Oct, 2017 06:00 pm
@cameronleon,
Quote:
Before you leave this world, reconsider your position because you have been defending a fake theory
Bishop Ussher called, He wants his sermons back.

Im gonna leave you hangin about atavsim in DTSC muscles I aint goin back through any paleoantomy for you. You are in no damn position to make believe youre a colleague involved in a science debate.
dalehileman
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 29 Oct, 2017 10:11 pm
@aperson,
https://able2know.org/topic/422776-1
0 Replies
 
cameronleon
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2017 05:14 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Please, Im all ears. Id love to hear you finally come out with something that you consider evidence of anything.


The fact is that the elements in the universe are in continued decay. This has been observed from older stars producing and recycling heavy elements, new stars with only the recycling of heavy elements but producing metals, and later with planets which do not produce heavy elements, do not recycle heavy elements, do not produce metals and do not recycle metals. The arrow is definitive, DECAY rules the elements of the universe.

These decayed elements form the living organisms, which are following the same trend. A new organism is formed, it is very complex. Throughout generations this organism will show degeneration and will become more simple.

The process of DEGENERATION OF THE SPECIES is in complete agreement with the decay of elements in the universe.

In your case, the fable called theory of evolution goes against the branch of physics, and when there is a contradiction between two branches of science, one of them is false.

The observation of the decay of elements in the branch of physics is not a theory but a fact.

By consequence, the theory of evolution is false.
cameronleon
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2017 05:20 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Bishop Ussher called, He wants his sermons back.

Im gonna leave you hangin about atavsim in DTSC muscles I aint goin back through any paleoantomy for you. You are in no damn position to make believe youre a colleague involved in a science debate.


What an arrogance.

A serious debater will ask for a break and find the correspondent information asked for the opponent.

But you really don't have access to journals and less you own a library researcher ID.

From far away one can notice that you are bogged down.

It is time for you to let new and way more accurate studies replace the several fantasies you learned as if they were science.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2017 06:01 pm
@cameronleon,
weak responses there Quahog. I believe I listed 4 or 5 atavistic areas all of which youve never disputed. All youre looking for is to do is to have me avert my attention by honoring your idiotic assertions about "degenertion".
You dont deny that a hirsute thickening and layering can be an atavism? Probably in your random visits to Wikipedia that were spurred by looking up my words and phrases
Why not just admit that you have no expertise , why always duck and cover by always trying diversionary tactics.
Your issues are week and your observations childish (besides being dead wrong).
Ill bet you flunked out of school and are just appealing to disdain on folks who have been associated with education.

Youre still avoid answering what I first asked you. I know your approach is a well used technique of "soldiers of Creationist science". I kinda get tired of being subjected to baseless BS accusations when youve never even added anything to the subject under discussion (The only thing you do is to look up what's been fed to you by those who understand the science , and try to come up with adolescent questions and infantile errors in recognizing the technology.) You are the father of melamine people.

Having you critique evolutionary findings and the supportive sciences therein is like listening to a budgie opine about Quantum Chemistry.

You are good for a laugh or two.

Didnt like my archbishop Ussher reference? I just thought you were getting lost in your silly Bulwer Lytton schmarmie style and needed to be brought up so you wouldnt get lost in your sermonizing.

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2017 06:28 pm
@cameronleon,
Quote:

The fact is that the elements in the universe are in continued decay. This has been observed from older stars producing and recycling heavy elements, new stars with only the recycling of heavy elements but producing metals, and later with planets which do not produce heavy elements, do not recycle heavy elements, do not produce metals and do not recycle metals. The arrow is definitive, DECAY rules the elements of the universe.

So you consider solar fusion as "DECAY"???. Wow, call Starkist.

Sid you not know that the cosmic log abundance of each galaxy is roughly constant? H and H2 stayed the same through time
Fusion changes the subatomic arrangements and were it not for this "DECAY" thwre would be no you.
As Crosby Stills Nash nd Young said

"We are stardust, we are golden.
We are billion year old carbon",
ad weve got to get back to the garden."

Stop babbling fairy tales about nucleogenesis as , life acts against all chemical gradients while in the living state. Thats why evolution is a fact of the universe .
I think you pick up some technical items of vocabulary and have made a career in misquoting what as said.

.
remember
M( r)<> M( p)
Conservation of mass works for nucleogenesis too. As our sun ages, youll see.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2017 06:40 pm
@cameronleon,
Quote:
In your case, the fable called theory of evolution goes against the branch of physics, and when there is a contradiction between two branches of science, one of them is false.


This statement, one of them is false, was good enough to produce my good laugh for today.
I would greatly appreciate it if you can provide the evidence that either evolution or science is false.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2017 05:29 pm
@cicerone imposter,
he doesnt meet knowledge hd on. He pulls stuff out his ass and hop people will buy it because he asserts it.
500 years of evolved science shows how much an item of ridicule he is.

He was making fun an declaring how E=mc^^ h no proof nor is it available for application.
Yt he basks in the correctness of Newton (So does he not know that E=mc^^ is just the bitter end of F=Ma??)

E(relativistic)=E(constant)X [Lambda] (as lmbda goes from v nd approachs (c)
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2017 05:37 pm
@farmerman,
kinda seeing tht Newton and Einstein differ almost not at all when we consider the two equations solve for relativistic energy and constant enery (Newton) we have a big Duhh for these clowns that deny relativity(s /g)

 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/15/2019 at 10:35:20