Discussion:
Outraged Creationists Ready To Go On More Shooting Sprees!!! Ancient Infant Ape Skull Sheds Light on the Ancestor of All Humans and Living Apes
(too old to reply)
Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
2017-08-10 23:01:41 UTC
Permalink
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/ancient-infant-ape-
skull-
sheds-light-ancestor-all-humans-and-living-apes

*Ancient Infant Ape Skull Sheds Light on the Ancestor of All
Humans and Living Apes* by Michael Price
Aug. 9, 2017

Anthropologists have waited decades to find the complete
cranium of a Miocene ape from Africa -- one that lived in the
hazy period before the human lineage split off from the common
ancestors we share with chimpanzees some 7 million years ago.
Now, scientists in Kenya have found their prize at last: an
almost perfectly preserved skull roughly the size of a
baseball. The catch? It’s from an infant. That means that
although it can give scientists a rough idea of what the common
ancestor to all living apes and humans would have looked like,
drawing other meaningful conclusions could be challenging.

“This is the sort of thing that the fossil record loves to do
to us,” says James Rossie, a biological anthropologist at the
State University of New York in Stony Brook who wasn’t
involved with the study. “The problem is that we learn from
fossils by comparing them to others. When there are no other
infant Miocene ape skulls to which to make those comparisons,
your hands are tied”.

The remarkably complete skull was discovered in the Turkana
Basin of northern Kenya 3 years ago. As the sun sank behind the
Napudet Hills west of Lake Turkana, primate paleontologist
Isaiah Nengo of De Anza College in Cupertino, California, and
his team started walking back to their jeep. Kenyan fossil
hunter John Ekusi raced ahead to smoke a cigarette. Suddenly he
began circling in place. When Nengo caught up, he saw a
dirt-clogged eye socket staring up at him. “There was this
skull just sticking out of the ground,” Nengo recalls. “It
was incredible because we had been going up and down that path
for weeks and never noticed it”.

The team carefully extracted the fossil from the rocky ground
using small dental picks and brushes. Nengo knew immediately it
was a primate skull, but that he wouldn’t learn much more
until he and colleagues performed a more sophisticated
analysis.

At the Noble Gas Laboratory at Rutgers University in New
Brunswick, New Jersey, researchers measured argon
isotopes—which decay at a fixed, predictable rate—within
the fossil’s rock layer, revealing that it was about 13
million years old. Back then, the dry, rocky landscape of
today’s Turkana Basin was a lush rainforest.

Although the fossil looks a bit like a gibbon skull on first
blush, Nengo says, its dental pattern and teeth shape suggest
its closest relatives are other Miocene fossil primates from
the genus *Nyanzapithecus*, also found in Kenya. Yet its molars
are much larger than those of the known nyanzapithecines,
indicating a new species. The researchers named it *N. alesi*,
or Alesi for short, after the Turkana word for “ancestor”.

Extremely sensitive x-ray imaging performed at the European
Synchrotron Radiation Facility in Grenoble, France, allowed the
team to count growth lines in the fossil’s unerupted adult
teeth like tree rings, telling them Alesi was about 485 days
(or 1 year and 4 months) old when it died. The x-rays also
revealed the presence of bony ear tubes in the skull, which act
as a balance organ. Primatologists have long debated whether
the Nyanzapithecus genus belonged to the ape or monkey line,
but the presence of these tubes, combined with the size and
shape of the teeth, solidly mark Alesi -- and by extension the
other nyanzapithecines -- as apes
[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v548/n7666/full/nature234
5
6.html?foxtrotcallback=true], the researchers report today in
'Nature'. What’s more, they claim, the ear tubes present
strong evidence that it’s an evolutionary cousin to the
ancestral line of apes from which humans and living apes
derive.

That could help answer a long-standing question in primate
evolution: Did the common ancestor to living apes and humans
evolve in Africa or Eurasia? Nengo says the new finding
supports an African origin. “Africa has been acting like a
petri dish for millions of years, conducting experiments in
evolution,” he says. “Humans and our close ape relatives
are just the latest evolutionary experiments to come out of
that petri dish.”

David Begun, an anthropologist at the University of Toronto in
Canada, isn’t convinced. He points to the fact that fossil
hominines—a group whose descendants include African apes and
humans—have been found in Europe dating to 12.5 million years
ago, but they don’t conclusively show up in the African
fossil record until 7 million years ago. To him, that suggests
the common ancestor evolved in Europe before heading back into
Africa. The discovery of N. alesi does nothing to change that.
“*Nyanzapithecus* is an early ape,” Begun says. “Whether
it’s the closest thing we know to the last common ancestor...
is questionable.” ----------


Another step forward in understanding ourselves.

. . .
Andrew
2017-08-11 00:17:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand
that there is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.

Therefore the article you posted would be properly noted
to be labeled as fake news and fake science .

"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a
lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested,
but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bed
time story--amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not
scientific

"From our vantage point in the present, we arrange fossils
in an order that reflects gradual acquisition of what we
see in ourselves. We do not seek the truth; we create it
after the fact, to suit our own prejudices."

"Many paleontologists believe that ancestor/descendent
lineages can be traced from the fossil record, and my
book is intended to debunk this view..old-style, traditional
evolutionary biology -- the type that feels it must tell a
story, and is therefore more appealing to news reporters
and makers of documentaries -- is unscientific.

"New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting
story. We call these new discoveries "missing links", as
if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object
for our contemplation, and not what it really is: . . . . .
a completely human invention created after the fact,
shaped to accord with human prejudices.... Each fossil
represents an isolated point, with no knowable
connection to any other given fossil, and all float
around in an overwhelming sea of gaps."
~ Henry Gee, Senior editor, "Nature"

It's about time you folk esteemed truth
of greater worth than fantasized stories.
Scout
2017-08-11 03:11:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Ok, so exactly what pathway can you find evidence of to explain how and why
we exist as we do today.

and don't try asserting fantasized processes which you have no evidence of,
or you will be in the same boat as you claim that evolution is.
Wally W.
2017-08-11 11:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Ok, so exactly what pathway can you find evidence of to explain how and why
we exist as we do today.
and don't try asserting fantasized processes which you have no evidence of,
or you will be in the same boat as you claim that evolution is.
False comparison.

Evolution claims to be science that is evidence-based.

Theistic creation claims the appearance of humans was a miracle.

Greenies claim the existence of *other* humans is a curse.
Scout
2017-08-13 04:41:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Ok, so exactly what pathway can you find evidence of to explain how and why
we exist as we do today.
and don't try asserting fantasized processes which you have no evidence of,
or you will be in the same boat as you claim that evolution is.
False comparison.
No, perfectly valid comparison. If you're telling me they are wrong, then
you should have evidence that shows proof of another means.
Post by Wally W.
Evolution claims to be science that is evidence-based.
Are you saying your claims aren't based on evidence?
Post by Wally W.
Theistic creation claims the appearance of humans was a miracle.
Yep, that seems to be your proof. Point at the sky and say "He did it"
(HDI).

Why did the flower bloom? (HDI)

Why did the bridge collapse? (HDI)

Amazing curiousity there, you assert to know the answer before you even ask
the question.

Whatever you want to ask about....(HDI).

Why does the light turn on? (HDI).
Post by Wally W.
Greenies claim the existence of *other* humans is a curse.
I'm more concerned about your claims, that what you claim others believe.

So.....once again....other than pointing at a being who's even existence
hasn't been proven....what do you have to back up your claims on why and how
man is here?
Wally W.
2017-08-13 05:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Ok, so exactly what pathway can you find evidence of to explain how and why
we exist as we do today.
and don't try asserting fantasized processes which you have no evidence of,
or you will be in the same boat as you claim that evolution is.
False comparison.
No, perfectly valid comparison.
Yes, it is a false comparison.
Post by Scout
If you're telling me they are wrong,
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Post by Scout
then
you should have evidence that shows proof of another means.
False demand.

It's like the greenies screeching about global warming and claiming it
is due to human emissions of CO2. If one is a "denier" and doesn't
accept their correlation (that is inconsistent and over a short time
span) then they will demand, "What else could it beeeee?"
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Evolution claims to be science that is evidence-based.
Are you saying your claims aren't based on evidence?
They aren't based on *scientific* evidence.

Evolution claims to be based on scientific evidence. It is not. It is
faith-based.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Theistic creation claims the appearance of humans was a miracle.
Yep, that seems to be your proof. Point at the sky and say "He did it"
(HDI).
Why did the flower bloom? (HDI)
Why did the bridge collapse? (HDI)
It might have been because of some bad calcuations; or the contractor
might have cut corners.
Post by Scout
Amazing curiousity there, you assert to know the answer before you even ask
the question.
You are imagining what I know.
Post by Scout
Whatever you want to ask about....(HDI).
Why does the light turn on? (HDI).
Post by Wally W.
Greenies claim the existence of *other* humans is a curse.
I'm more concerned about your claims, that what you claim others believe.
Be as concerned as you choose to be.
Post by Scout
So.....once again....other than pointing at a being who's even existence
hasn't been proven....
What do you mean "proven?"
Post by Scout
what do you have to back up your claims on why and how
man is here?
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
Melzzzzz
2017-08-13 05:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...
Andrew
2017-08-13 07:18:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good
as the case for the faith-based assertions about
evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens.
That is true. The problem is, that it explains it
by taking the gullible listener into the realm of
fantasy.
Post by Melzzzzz
Theistic creaton does not explains anything.
It explains the impossibility of life creating
itself.
Post by Melzzzzz
`God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
How? By act of Creation.

Your alternative is to join the gullible masses who
blindly accept origin myths that are concocted to
sound scientific, but are in fact fantasized stories.
Scout
2017-08-13 08:27:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens.
That is true. The problem is, that it explains it
by taking the gullible listener into the realm of fantasy.
Sort as you're suggesting the listener do with your claims of creation?
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Theistic creaton does not explains anything.
It explains the impossibility of life creating itself.
Post by Melzzzzz
`God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
How? By act of Creation.
Your alternative is to join the gullible masses who blindly accept origin
myths that are concocted to sound scientific, but are in fact fantasized
stories.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-13 10:20:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
It explains the impossibility of life creating
itself.
Theories of evolution do not explain the origin of life. That's coverred by
abiogenesis hypotheses. Theories of evolution explain how life evolves to old
and new forms.

Theories of evolution remain just as valid if you assume the creation of the
first life was divine intervention.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Andrew
2017-08-13 12:29:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Andrew
It explains the impossibility of life creating
itself.
Theories of evolution do not explain the origin
of life.
The context was:
__________________________________
Post by Siri Cruise
Theistic creaton does not explains anything.
It explains *the impossibility of* life creating
itself.
__________________________________
Post by Siri Cruise
That's coverred by abiogenesis hypotheses.
Is it covered by science? Or is it covered by
a ~fantasized story~ that is contrary to real
science?
Post by Siri Cruise
Theories of evolution explain how life
evolves to old and new forms.
Starting from the ~fantasized~ "first replicator".
Post by Siri Cruise
Theories of evolution remain just as valid if you assume
the creation of the first life was divine intervention.
The evolution model requires a fantasized "first replicator"
to get things going. But scientists have no idea how it may
have originated, 'except' by concocting insupportable and
unscientific stories that are not repeatable or observable.

And even if you had a "first replicator", there is *no proven
mechanism* for it to macro-evolve per the story they told
you.

The more we examine it, the more we see Creation as the
more plausible model for our origins.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-13 12:57:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Siri Cruise
That's coverred by abiogenesis hypotheses.
Is it covered by science? Or is it covered by
Yes, they are conjectures based on what the early earth was like and organic
chemistry. Because life might eaten all traces of pre-life, they might never get
beyond the hypothesis stage.
Post by Andrew
Starting from the ~fantasized~ "first replicator".
Even creationism has a first replicator. Everyone concludes the universe started
dead and in at least one place, here, life somehow clicked into existence.
Abiogenesis covers the dead earth to first assembly of molecules that can be
considerred alive. Once life is established it is then subject to biological
evolution.
Post by Andrew
The evolution model requires a fantasized "first replicator"
Who preceded Adam and Eve?
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 16:30:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Andrew
The evolution model requires a fantasized "first replicator"
Who preceded Adam and Eve?
Um, plenty of races and peoples, so?
g***@gmail.com
2017-08-13 20:15:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Andrew
It explains the impossibility of life creating
itself.
Theories of evolution do not explain the origin
of life.
__________________________________
Post by Siri Cruise
Theistic creaton does not explains anything.
It explains *the impossibility of* life creating
itself.
So then Nietzsche was right!

Wow. Out of the mouths of babes...
Post by Andrew
__________________________________
Post by Siri Cruise
That's coverred by abiogenesis hypotheses.
Is it covered by science? Or is it covered by
a ~fantasized story~ that is contrary to real
science?
Post by Siri Cruise
Theories of evolution explain how life
evolves to old and new forms.
Starting from the ~fantasized~ "first replicator".
Post by Siri Cruise
Theories of evolution remain just as valid if you assume
the creation of the first life was divine intervention.
The evolution model requires a fantasized "first replicator"
to get things going. But scientists have no idea how it may
have originated, 'except' by concocting insupportable and
unscientific stories that are not repeatable or observable.
And even if you had a "first replicator", there is *no proven
mechanism* for it to macro-evolve per the story they told
you.
The more we examine it, the more we see Creation as the
more plausible model for our origins.
Scout
2017-08-13 23:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Andrew
It explains the impossibility of life creating itself.
Theories of evolution do not explain the origin of life.
__________________________________
Post by Siri Cruise
Theistic creaton does not explains anything.
It explains *the impossibility of* life creating itself.
How? By stomping your feet and saying it didn't happen that way?
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 16:26:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Theories of evolution do not explain the origin of life. That's coverred by
abiogenesis hypotheses. Theories of evolution explain how life evolves to old
and new forms.
...of sparrows and fish....
Scout
2017-08-13 23:55:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Andrew
It explains the impossibility of life creating
itself.
Theories of evolution do not explain the origin of life. That's coverred by
abiogenesis hypotheses. Theories of evolution explain how life evolves to old
and new forms.
Theories of evolution remain just as valid if you assume the creation of the
first life was divine intervention.
True, but so far we have no evidence to support 'divine intervention', as
such we're pretty much required to consider the possibility, or even
probability, that it's a natural occurrence under the laws of nature.
Certainly without evidence of such a 'divine being' there is no reason at
all to inject it into the theories.
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 16:20:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for
the faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens.
That is true.
No, it is NOT!
Post by Andrew
The problem is, that it explains it
by taking the gullible listener into the realm of fantasy.
Same as fake science does with YOU.
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Theistic creaton does not explains anything.
It explains the impossibility of life creating itself.
That's a LIE!
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
`God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
How? By act of Creation.
EG: terraforming.
=
Post by Andrew
Your alternative is to join the gullible masses who blindly accept
origin myths that are concocted to sound scientific, but are in fact
fantasized stories.
While you believe your fantasy denials.

Intelligent design is real, proved, cope.
Scout
2017-08-13 23:51:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens.
That is true. The problem is, that it explains it
by taking the gullible listener into the realm of fantasy.
Like creationism does?
Post by Andrew
Post by Melzzzzz
Theistic creaton does not explains anything.
It explains the impossibility of life creating itself.
Ah, so if as you claim, despite the fact you can't prove it, that life just
doesn't happen......who created God?

Oops, looks like a little flaw there in your assertions. Clearly life must
be able to create itself or God wouldn't exist to create us.
Scout
2017-08-13 08:26:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.

Science addresses 'how'
theology claims 'who'

They aren't necessarily contradictory.

Because I'm not aware that any details exist for exactly what method(s) God
used in creation.
Andrew
2017-08-13 12:31:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Post by Scout
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
Post by Scout
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Post by Scout
Because I'm not aware that any details exist for exactly what method(s) God
used in creation.
The Bible gives a few details as to the methods He used for Creation.
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 16:29:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
Because I'm not aware that any details exist for exactly what
method(s) God used in creation.
The Bible gives a few details as to the methods He used for Creation.
Largely in ancient allegory which confounds the modern science crowd.
Scout
2017-08-13 23:59:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
Post by Scout
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
Because I'm not aware that any details exist for exactly what method(s)
God used in creation.
The Bible gives a few details as to the methods He used for Creation.
Then you should have no problems telling us how life can be created so that
we can do the same.
de chucka
2017-08-14 00:51:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
Post by Scout
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now. The classic example being drug resistant
bacteria
Andrew
2017-08-14 07:05:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
Post by Scout
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now.
Yes, depending on how you define the word.
Post by de chucka
The classic example being drug resistant bacteria.
The bacteria that become so, do so through a loss of
genetic information. Meaning that they incur what is
called a, "fitness cost".
de chucka
2017-08-14 08:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
Post by Scout
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now.
Yes, depending on how you define the word.
Define it for m so we are on your playing field
Post by Andrew
Post by de chucka
The classic example being drug resistant bacteria.
The bacteria that become so, do so through a loss of genetic
information. Meaning that they incur what is called a, "fitness cost".
Wrong they do so because they are genetically not vulnerable and
therefore don;t die
Siri Cruise
2017-08-14 11:20:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
The bacteria that become so, do so through a loss of genetic
information. Meaning that they incur what is called a, "fitness cost".
So collect DNA of bacteria and prove that the DNA is getting smaller over time.
Or an at least the encoding DNA. Then calculate the rate of genetic information
loss rate, the current genetic information, and predict how many years until
bacteria won't have enough DNA left to survive. Calculate backwards how many
kilograms of DNA each bacterium had six thousand years ago.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Jeanne Douglas
2017-08-14 14:12:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Andrew
The bacteria that become so, do so through a loss of genetic
information. Meaning that they incur what is called a, "fitness cost".
So collect DNA of bacteria and prove that the DNA is getting smaller over time.
Or an at least the encoding DNA. Then calculate the rate of genetic information
loss rate, the current genetic information, and predict how many years until
bacteria won't have enough DNA left to survive. Calculate backwards how many
kilograms of DNA each bacterium had six thousand years ago.
Oh, that's hilarious. I can hear the WHOOOSH already.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
de chucka
2017-08-14 20:55:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Andrew
The bacteria that become so, do so through a loss of genetic
information. Meaning that they incur what is called a, "fitness cost".
So collect DNA of bacteria and prove that the DNA is getting smaller over time.
Or an at least the encoding DNA. Then calculate the rate of genetic information
loss rate, the current genetic information, and predict how many years until
bacteria won't have enough DNA left to survive. Calculate backwards how many
kilograms of DNA each bacterium had six thousand years ago.
1) I didn't say that
2) What Andrew claims is BS
Andrew
2017-08-14 21:29:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Andrew
The bacteria that become so, do so through a loss of genetic
information. Meaning that they incur what is called a, "fitness cost".
So collect DNA of bacteria and prove that the DNA is getting smaller over time.
Or an at least the encoding DNA. Then calculate the rate of genetic information
loss rate, the current genetic information, and predict how many years until
bacteria won't have enough DNA left to survive. Calculate backwards how many
kilograms of DNA each bacterium had six thousand years ago.
1) I didn't say that
2) What Andrew claims is BS
This helps to explait it: https://tinyurl.com/ydewys7g
de chucka
2017-08-14 21:39:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by de chucka
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Andrew
The bacteria that become so, do so through a loss of genetic
information. Meaning that they incur what is called a, "fitness cost".
So collect DNA of bacteria and prove that the DNA is getting smaller over time.
Or an at least the encoding DNA. Then calculate the rate of genetic information
loss rate, the current genetic information, and predict how many years until
bacteria won't have enough DNA left to survive. Calculate backwards how many
kilograms of DNA each bacterium had six thousand years ago.
1) I didn't say that
2) What Andrew claims is BS
This helps to explait it: https://tinyurl.com/ydewys7g
No it doesn't the normal mix of actual science from which strange
conclusion are drawn. Of course there are straight out
mistakes/falsehoods eg the mechanism of resistance to ampicillin is by
the production of beta lactamases (The old BRL days)

Don't you love the Creation Research Society as a scientific organisation

The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is
inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and
scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature
this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual
presentation of simple historical truths.
All basic types of living things, including man, were made by
direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in
Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week
have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as
the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and
effect.
We are an organization of Christian men and women of science
who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the
special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their
subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of
a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through
accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
Andrew
2017-08-14 21:48:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Andrew
The bacteria that become so, do so through a loss of genetic
information. Meaning that they incur what is called a, "fitness cost".
So collect DNA of bacteria and prove that the DNA is getting smaller over time.
Or an at least the encoding DNA. Then calculate the rate of genetic information
loss rate, the current genetic information, and predict how many years until
bacteria won't have enough DNA left to survive. Calculate backwards how many
kilograms of DNA each bacterium had six thousand years ago.
1) I didn't say that
2) What Andrew claims is BS
This helps to explain it: https://tinyurl.com/ydewys7g
No it doesn't the normal mix of actual science from which strange
conclusion are drawn. Of course there are straight out
mistakes/falsehoods eg the mechanism of resistance to ampicillin is by
the production of beta lactamases (The old BRL days)
Do you think that bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a good
example of evolutionary change as per the Darwin paradigm?
Post by de chucka
Don't you love the Creation Research Society as a scientific organisation
The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is
inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and
scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature
this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual
presentation of simple historical truths.
All basic types of living things, including man, were made by
direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in
Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week
have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as
the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and
effect.
We are an organization of Christian men and women of science
who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the
special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their
subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of
a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through
accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-14 23:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Yeah, you're unravelling. The first step in healing is acknowledging the disease.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Jeanne Douglas
2017-08-15 03:52:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Andrew
Post by de chucka
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Andrew
The bacteria that become so, do so through a loss of genetic
information. Meaning that they incur what is called a, "fitness cost".
So collect DNA of bacteria and prove that the DNA is getting smaller over time.
Or an at least the encoding DNA. Then calculate the rate of genetic information
loss rate, the current genetic information, and predict how many years until
bacteria won't have enough DNA left to survive. Calculate backwards how many
kilograms of DNA each bacterium had six thousand years ago.
1) I didn't say that
2) What Andrew claims is BS
This helps to explait it: https://tinyurl.com/ydewys7g
No it doesn't the normal mix of actual science from which strange
conclusion are drawn. Of course there are straight out
mistakes/falsehoods eg the mechanism of resistance to ampicillin is by
the production of beta lactamases (The old BRL days)
Don't you love the Creation Research Society as a scientific organisation
Yep. To work for them you have to sign a contract stating that you will abandon fact and science and reality.
Post by de chucka
The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is
inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and
scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature
this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual
presentation of simple historical truths.
All basic types of living things, including man, were made by
direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in
Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week
have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as
the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and
effect.
We are an organization of Christian men and women of science
who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the
special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their
subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of
a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through
accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-08-14 18:36:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
Post by Scout
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now.
Yes, depending on how you define the word.
.
.
Post by Andrew
Post by de chucka
The classic example being drug resistant bacteria.
The bacteria that become so, do so through a loss of
genetic information. Meaning that they incur what is
called a, "fitness cost".
Pretty sweeping there, Andrew. Kind of all encompassing.
Not to mention vague and non-specific.

So let's get more specific, shall we?

_Salmonella enterica_ acquires resistance to the beta-lactam class
of antibiotics by point mutations in penicillin-binding proteins.
One specific outcome is the evolution of beta-lactamase, an enzyme
that hydrolysizes the antibiotic. Another simply reduces the
ability of the antibiotic to bind to the target site.

So enlighten us here: what information has been lost?
What is the fitness cost to these now seriously not-dead bacteria?

A.A.
Andrew
2017-08-14 21:23:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
Post by Scout
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now.
Yes, depending on how you define the word.
Post by de chucka
The classic example being drug resistant bacteria.
The bacteria that become so, do so through a loss of
genetic information. Meaning that they incur what is
called a, "fitness cost".
Pretty sweeping there, Andrew. Kind of all encompassing.
Not to mention vague and non-specific.
So let's get more specific, shall we?
_Salmonella enterica_ acquires resistance to the beta-lactam class
of antibiotics by point mutations in penicillin-binding proteins.
While such mutations are excellent examples of bacterial adaptation,
they are actually the antithesis of the mutational change necessary for
Darwinian macro-evolution. https://tinyurl.com/ydewys7g
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
One specific outcome is the evolution of beta-lactamase, an enzyme
that hydrolysizes the antibiotic. Another simply reduces the
ability of the antibiotic to bind to the target site.
So enlighten us here: what information has been lost?
http://www.crsq.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/2005v41n4p318.pdf
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
What is the fitness cost to these now seriously not-dead bacteria?
Start here ----> https://tinyurl.com/y7p893fc
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-08-14 22:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
Post by Scout
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now.
Yes, depending on how you define the word.
Post by de chucka
The classic example being drug resistant bacteria.
The bacteria that become so, do so through a loss of
genetic information. Meaning that they incur what is
called a, "fitness cost".
Pretty sweeping there, Andrew. Kind of all encompassing.
Not to mention vague and non-specific.
So let's get more specific, shall we?
_Salmonella enterica_ acquires resistance to the beta-lactam class
of antibiotics by point mutations in penicillin-binding proteins.
While such mutations are excellent examples of bacterial adaptation,
they are actually the antithesis of the mutational change necessary for
Darwinian macro-evolution. https://tinyurl.com/ydewys7g
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
One specific outcome is the evolution of beta-lactamase, an enzyme
that hydrolysizes the antibiotic. Another simply reduces the
ability of the antibiotic to bind to the target site.
So enlighten us here: what information has been lost?
http://www.crsq.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/2005v41n4p318.pdf
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
What is the fitness cost to these now seriously not-dead bacteria?
Start here ----> https://tinyurl.com/y7p893fc
I did not ask you to do a scattershot google in the hopes of
stumbling on to something, now did I?

What I did ask you was:

1) exactly what information has been lost in this specific case:
point mutations resulting in to two specific adaptations by this specific bacterium
to this specific family of antibiotics, and

2) describe exactly the supposed fitness costs.


So. Let's do this stepwise. We'll start with number one.

In your own words, exactly what information has been lost?

Go:












A.A.
Just Wondering
2017-08-14 09:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
Post by Scout
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now. The classic example being drug resistant
bacteria
Not a different species of bacteria. Evolution = evolution of species,
not adaptation within species.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-14 10:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Not a different species of bacteria. Evolution = evolution of species,
not adaptation within species.
No, biological evolution is any change in life over time.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Just Wondering
2017-08-15 01:39:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Just Wondering
Not a different species of bacteria. Evolution = evolution of species,
not adaptation within species.
No, biological evolution is any change in life over time.
Evolutionists claim evolution is how species is
created. Adaptation within a species is not
evidence of creation of a new species.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-15 01:45:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Just Wondering
Not a different species of bacteria. Evolution = evolution of species,
not adaptation within species.
No, biological evolution is any change in life over time.
Evolutionists claim evolution is how species is
created. Adaptation within a species is not
evidence of creation of a new species.
I see. So the difference of 'necessary' and 'sufficient' is quite beyond your
limitted mental capacity.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
de chucka
2017-08-15 02:22:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Just Wondering
Not a different species of bacteria. Evolution = evolution of species,
not adaptation within species.
No, biological evolution is any change in life over time.
Evolutionists claim evolution is how species is
created.
No that is what you claim
Jeanne Douglas
2017-08-14 14:07:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
Post by Scout
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now. The classic example being drug resistant
bacteria
Not a different species of bacteria. Evolution = evolution of species,
not adaptation within species.
You have absolutely no clue what evolution is.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
de chucka
2017-08-14 20:56:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
Post by Scout
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now. The classic example being drug resistant
bacteria
Not a different species of bacteria. Evolution = evolution of species,
not adaptation within species.
Does it?
Scout
2017-08-15 03:26:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
Post by Scout
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now. The classic example being drug resistant
bacteria
Not a different species of bacteria. Evolution = evolution of species,
not adaptation within species.
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/poodle-cat-fluffy-feline/2013/06/24/id/511461/
Jeanne Douglas
2017-08-14 12:36:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
Post by Scout
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now. The classic example being drug resistant
bacteria
Andrew is impervious to reality. The best response is ridicule, not attempted discussion. It would be like banging your head against a concrete wall over and over and over and over and over again.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Christopher A. Lee
2017-08-14 13:42:14 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 07:36:57 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
Post by Melzzzzz
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Liar.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
The moron can't.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
And it's baseless bullshit as well as mindless stupidity
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Because there is no evidence for a creator. All they have is the
insane insistence that bronze-age myths and legends are fact.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now. The classic example being drug resistant
bacteria
Andrew is impervious to reality. The best response is ridicule, not attempted
discussion. It would be like banging your head against a concrete wall over
and over and over and over and over again.
It is impossible to discuss anything with the certifiably insane who
insist their delusions and lies are fact, not to mention their private
Orwellian redefinitions of everyday words and their ignorance of the
most basic logic.

Which wouldn't be so bad if they kept these inside their churches, but
they do all these in the real world - especially when they try to
start the "discussion" of which they are incapable.
Michelle Malkin
2017-08-15 02:40:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 07:36:57 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
Post by Melzzzzz
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
http://darwiniana.org/abiogenesis.htm
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
So does Creation.
Having a mythical deity say magic words explains nothing.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Liar.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
The moron can't.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
And it's baseless bullshit as well as mindless stupidity
When theists can't even provide evidence that their god ever existed,
anything related to the non-existent god is nonsense.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Because there is no evidence for a creator. All they have is the
insane insistence that bronze-age myths and legends are fact.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now. The classic example being drug resistant
bacteria
Andrew is impervious to reality. The best response is ridicule, not attempted
discussion. It would be like banging your head against a concrete wall over
and over and over and over and over again.
It is impossible to discuss anything with the certifiably insane who
insist their delusions and lies are fact, not to mention their private
Orwellian redefinitions of everyday words and their ignorance of the
most basic logic.
Which wouldn't be so bad if they kept these inside their churches, but
they do all these in the real world - especially when they try to
start the "discussion" of which they are incapable.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Siri Cruise
2017-08-13 10:15:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Creationism can be made consistent. The Church of Last Thursdayism is consistent
and explains everything. Whether you accept either or neither is up to you and
you alone.


Oh, and eventually you come to a bottom where the only explanation is 'because'.
Why do fermions have spin? Because. Why should a god's speech create reality?
Because. Why do you recreate the world every week? Because.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 16:16:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not.
Yes it is!
Post by Wally W.
Evolution explains how it happens.
In sparrows.
Post by Wally W.
Theistic creaton does not
explains anything.
Of course it does.
Post by Wally W.
`God willed into existence` is fairytale.
Or allegory.
Post by Wally W.
It does not even says how.
True, the Bible doesn't cover terraforming in modern scientific terms.
Scout
2017-08-13 08:21:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Ok, so exactly what pathway can you find evidence of to explain how and why
we exist as we do today.
and don't try asserting fantasized processes which you have no evidence of,
or you will be in the same boat as you claim that evolution is.
False comparison.
No, perfectly valid comparison.
Yes, it is a false comparison.
How so? You assert they make claims without evidence. Which is no less than
what you're doing.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
If you're telling me they are wrong,
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
And yours is different how?

Meanwhile, on a side note are you aware of how many missing links have been
found....only for those on your side to demand new links on each side of the
link just discovered?

Exactly what level of evidence do you demand?

A piece of land that has never been subject to any upheavals, and never
disturbed in any way, where every creature laid down on top of their
parents to die?

Meanwhile, exactly WHAT evidence do you have to support your claims?
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
then
you should have evidence that shows proof of another means.
False demand.
Oh, so it's wrong that they don't have any proof, but asking you to supply
it isn't acceptable?

Talk about a double standard.

If you find their evidence inadequate, then present stronger evidence that
you're right.


<snip lame attempt to change the subject>
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Evolution claims to be science that is evidence-based.
Are you saying your claims aren't based on evidence?
They aren't based on *scientific* evidence.
So what evidence are they based on?
Post by Wally W.
Evolution claims to be based on scientific evidence. It is not. It is
faith-based.
No, there seems to be evidence to support it, and while I agree it's
somewhat limited and to some degree inconclusive, it is far better evidence
than anything you've brought to the table to support your assertion which is
PURELY a matter of faith.

Seems, you like evidence that is based in faith.....but only if it's YOUR
faith.

I don't really care either way. So far, your attempts to claim they are
wrong and you're right because of your faith in your beliefs....I find to be
unconvincing. At least they are actually trying to find out if they are
right or wrong and willing to change their minds if they can find evidence
to do so. You on the other hand seem utterly content to believe what you
believe without evidence, investigation or even doubt.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Theistic creation claims the appearance of humans was a miracle.
Yep, that seems to be your proof. Point at the sky and say "He did it"
(HDI).
Why did the flower bloom? (HDI)
Why did the bridge collapse? (HDI)
It might have been because of some bad calcuations; or the contractor
might have cut corners.
Oh, really? God makes bad calculations or hires contractors that cut
corners?
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Amazing curiousity there, you assert to know the answer before you even ask
the question.
You are imagining what I know.
I have to, since you refuse to back up your claims with any sort of
evidence.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Whatever you want to ask about....(HDI).
Why does the light turn on? (HDI).
Post by Wally W.
Greenies claim the existence of *other* humans is a curse.
I'm more concerned about your claims, that what you claim others believe.
Be as concerned as you choose to be.
I am, and right now, my concern for your blind beliefs is less than it was.
Those you argue against, at least they are looking for evidence of whether
they are right or wrong.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
So.....once again....other than pointing at a being who's even existence
hasn't been proven....
What do you mean "proven?"
The same level of proof you would demand for evolution.

After all, if the standard is good enough for that, then it should be just
as good for your claims.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
what do you have to back up your claims on why and how
man is here?
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
Not really. Because while science can show linkages, though admittedly
incomplete, they can track changes over time and even within the human body
there exists structures and organs that are poorly 'designed' or even
utterly useless in the form we exist in now. While, not proof, it is
evidence which suggests creatures change over time due to natural causes.

Heck, you can't even produce scientific evidence of the being you assert
what you claim.

For example.

Let's say I postulate that flowers are a result of the work of fairies.
When challenged on that, I simply point to the flowers as proof that they
were created by fairies.
Thus, by what seems to be your standards for your evidence, I have proven
fairies exist.

Here's a thought to blow your mind: What if God used evolution to create
life?

If that statement is true, then your denial of how he created life is at
odds with your assertion that he did so.

And what evidence do you have that evolution wasn't his method for creating
life?
Wally W.
2017-08-13 10:40:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Ok, so exactly what pathway can you find evidence of to explain how and why
we exist as we do today.
and don't try asserting fantasized processes which you have no evidence of,
or you will be in the same boat as you claim that evolution is.
False comparison.
No, perfectly valid comparison.
Yes, it is a false comparison.
How so? You assert they make claims without evidence. Which is no less than
what you're doing.
If evolution is a science, it needs *scientific* evidence.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
If you're telling me they are wrong,
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
And yours is different how?
Theis isn't a science.

We can't put God in a test tube.
Post by Scout
Meanwhile, on a side note are you aware of how many missing links have been
found....only for those on your side to demand new links on each side of the
link just discovered?
Exactly what level of evidence do you demand?
Continuity in the chain evolutionist claim exists.
Post by Scout
A piece of land that has never been subject to any upheavals, and never
disturbed in any way, where every creature laid down on top of their
parents to die?
Meanwhile, exactly WHAT evidence do you have to support your claims?
Testimonial evidence of millions of people.

This same kind of evidence is adequate for some purposes in a court of
law.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
then
you should have evidence that shows proof of another means.
False demand.
Oh, so it's wrong that they don't have any proof, but asking you to supply
it isn't acceptable?
I don't claim theist creation is a science. You say evolution is a
science. They require different kinds of proof.
Post by Scout
Talk about a double standard.
Talk about muddying the waters.
Post by Scout
If you find their evidence inadequate, then present stronger evidence that
you're right.
That's not how science works. The burden of proof is on the
"scientists" who put forth the theory of evolution. Show us continuity
in the record.
Post by Scout
<snip lame attempt to change the subject>
You snipped another example of faith-based spew that wants to call
itself "science."
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Evolution claims to be science that is evidence-based.
Are you saying your claims aren't based on evidence?
They aren't based on *scientific* evidence.
So what evidence are they based on?
See above about testimonial evidence.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Evolution claims to be based on scientific evidence. It is not. It is
faith-based.
No, there seems to be evidence to support it, and while I agree it's
somewhat limited and to some degree inconclusive, it is far better evidence
than anything you've brought to the table to support your assertion which is
PURELY a matter of faith.
You are being quite dogmatic even though you admit your "scientific"
evidence is "somewhat limited and to some degree inconclusive.' One
could interpret your dogmatism as arising from an article of faith.
Post by Scout
Seems, you like evidence that is based in faith.....but only if it's YOUR
faith.
I don't really care either way. So far, your attempts to claim they are
wrong and you're right because of your faith in your beliefs....I find to be
unconvincing. At least they are actually trying to find out if they are
right or wrong and willing to change their minds if they can find evidence
to do so.
To what do you suppose they would change if they find out they are
wrong?
Post by Scout
You on the other hand seem utterly content to believe what you
believe without evidence, investigation or even doubt.
My belief doesn't need scientific evidence, because it isn't science.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Theistic creation claims the appearance of humans was a miracle.
Yep, that seems to be your proof. Point at the sky and say "He did it"
(HDI).
Why did the flower bloom? (HDI)
Why did the bridge collapse? (HDI)
It might have been because of some bad calcuations; or the contractor
might have cut corners.
Oh, really? God makes bad calculations or hires contractors that cut
corners?
God doesn't build bridges. People do.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Amazing curiousity there, you assert to know the answer before you even ask
the question.
You are imagining what I know.
I have to, since you refuse to back up your claims with any sort of
evidence.
Again, the burden of proof is on those who want to be dogmatic about
the Truth of evolution: show us continuity in the record.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Whatever you want to ask about....(HDI).
Why does the light turn on? (HDI).
Post by Wally W.
Greenies claim the existence of *other* humans is a curse.
I'm more concerned about your claims, that what you claim others believe.
Be as concerned as you choose to be.
I am, and right now, my concern for your blind beliefs is less than it was.
Those you argue against, at least they are looking for evidence of whether
they are right or wrong.
Are *you* looking for evidence that evolution is wrong?

If so, please describe your most recent search.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
So.....once again....other than pointing at a being who's even existence
hasn't been proven....
What do you mean "proven?"
The same level of proof you would demand for evolution.
Again, faith in a creator is not science. Neither is evolution, but
you won't admit that your belief in evolution is faith-based.
Post by Scout
After all, if the standard is good enough for that, then it should be just
as good for your claims.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
what do you have to back up your claims on why and how
man is here?
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
Not really. Because while science can show linkages, though admittedly
incomplete, they can track changes over time and even within the human body
there exists structures and organs that are poorly 'designed' or even
utterly useless in the form we exist in now. While, not proof, it is
evidence which suggests creatures change over time due to natural causes.
Heck, you can't even produce scientific evidence of the being you assert
what you claim.
Look up at night.

Where did the stars come from?

From the big bang?

That's another faith-based view that is spewed with dogmatism:
"In the Beginning there was nothing,
which exploded." - Terry Pratchett
Post by Scout
For example.
Let's say I postulate that flowers are a result of the work of fairies.
When challenged on that, I simply point to the flowers as proof that they
were created by fairies.
Thus, by what seems to be your standards for your evidence, I have proven
fairies exist.
Here's a thought to blow your mind: What if God used evolution to create
life?
You think that never came up before? It is called theistic evolution.
Some believe that.
Post by Scout
If that statement is true, then your denial of how he created life is at
odds with your assertion that he did so.
And if it isn't, it is not.
Post by Scout
And what evidence do you have that evolution wasn't his method for creating
life?
He spoke the various parts of creation into existence. See Genesis
chapter 1:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1
Scout
2017-08-14 00:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Ok, so exactly what pathway can you find evidence of to explain how
and
why
we exist as we do today.
and don't try asserting fantasized processes which you have no
evidence
of,
or you will be in the same boat as you claim that evolution is.
False comparison.
No, perfectly valid comparison.
Yes, it is a false comparison.
How so? You assert they make claims without evidence. Which is no less than
what you're doing.
If evolution is a science, it needs *scientific* evidence.
It has some. What evidence does your theory have?
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
If you're telling me they are wrong,
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
And yours is different how?
Theis isn't a science.
Ah, so it's a matter of faith. Yet you complain that others have a different
faith.

Makes you a bit of a hypocrite then, doesn't it?
Post by Wally W.
We can't put God in a test tube.
Then your theories are empty noises which lack any supporting evidence
within reality.

Meanwhile science attempts to produce theories that match the known
evidence. While religions on the other hand attempts to ignore evidence that
conflicts with their beliefs.

Who is more interested in discovering the truth?

Heck, if Religion has it's way, the Sun would be orbiting the Earth and the
rest of the universe would be doing the same.
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 16:21:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Here's a thought to blow your mind: What if God used evolution to create
life?
If that statement is true, then your denial of how he created life is at
odds with your assertion that he did so.
And what evidence do you have that evolution wasn't his method for
creating life?
Ding!

Nailed it.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-13 10:05:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life. Theories of
evolution are developped with the scientific method.

The scientific method is based on assumptions about the nature of the universe.
For some people those might be considerred beliefs or a religion, however
everything based on experimental science is based on those same assumptions. It
is inconsistent to accept the scientific method only when you like the results.

(The universe is objectively real, mechanical, explicable, consistent.)

I personally don't see fossils as evidence of evolution, but the reverse,
something explained by the theories. For anything too old for DNA convergent
evolution is very improbable but possible explanation.

There's more than enough evidence looking at life as she is spoken here and now
and analyzing DNA over the last tens (hundreds?) of thousands of years.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
then
you should have evidence that shows proof of another means.
False demand.
True, you cannot be forced to justify your statements. I cannot be forced to
agree with them. Do you care enough if I agree with you?
Post by Wally W.
It's like the greenies screeching about global warming and claiming it
Diversion.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Evolution claims to be science that is evidence-based.
Are you saying your claims aren't based on evidence?
They aren't based on *scientific* evidence.
Evolution can be observed in your yard. In your home. In a flowerpot. On a farm.
Anywhere there's life.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Theistic creation claims the appearance of humans was a miracle.
Or the creation of Hutts was a miracle, and humans were an accident.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
what do you have to back up your claims on why and how
man is here?
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
I can construct a consistent creationism. I don't know if you can.

However consistency is not sufficient for believability. A consistent
creationism requires a trickster god who made people very intelligent but
punishes us if we use that god-given intelligence.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Scout
2017-08-13 10:18:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life. Theories of
evolution are developped with the scientific method.
The scientific method is based on assumptions about the nature of the universe.
For some people those might be considerred beliefs or a religion, however
everything based on experimental science is based on those same assumptions. It
is inconsistent to accept the scientific method only when you like the results.
(The universe is objectively real, mechanical, explicable, consistent.)
I personally don't see fossils as evidence of evolution, but the reverse,
something explained by the theories. For anything too old for DNA convergent
evolution is very improbable but possible explanation.
There's more than enough evidence looking at life as she is spoken here and now
and analyzing DNA over the last tens (hundreds?) of thousands of years.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
then
you should have evidence that shows proof of another means.
False demand.
True, you cannot be forced to justify your statements. I cannot be forced to
agree with them. Do you care enough if I agree with you?
Post by Wally W.
It's like the greenies screeching about global warming and claiming it
Diversion.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Evolution claims to be science that is evidence-based.
Are you saying your claims aren't based on evidence?
They aren't based on *scientific* evidence.
Evolution can be observed in your yard. In your home. In a flowerpot. On a farm.
Anywhere there's life.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Theistic creation claims the appearance of humans was a miracle.
Or the creation of Hutts was a miracle, and humans were an accident.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
what do you have to back up your claims on why and how
man is here?
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
I can construct a consistent creationism. I don't know if you can.
However consistency is not sufficient for believability. A consistent
creationism requires a trickster god who made people very intelligent but
punishes us if we use that god-given intelligence.
Bravo!
Wally W.
2017-08-13 10:20:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Evolution is an observed process
You observed dinosaurs morph to birds?
Post by Siri Cruise
in both wild and domestic life. Theories of
evolution are developped with the scientific method.
The scientific method is based on assumptions about the nature of the universe.
For some people those might be considerred beliefs or a religion, however
everything based on experimental science is based on those same assumptions. It
is inconsistent to accept the scientific method only when you like the results.
(The universe is objectively real, mechanical, explicable, consistent.)
I personally don't see fossils as evidence of evolution, but the reverse,
something explained by the theories. For anything too old for DNA convergent
evolution is very improbable but possible explanation.
There's more than enough evidence looking at life as she is spoken here and now
and analyzing DNA over the last tens (hundreds?) of thousands of years.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
then
you should have evidence that shows proof of another means.
False demand.
True, you cannot be forced to justify your statements. I cannot be forced to
agree with them. Do you care enough if I agree with you?
Post by Wally W.
It's like the greenies screeching about global warming and claiming it
Diversion.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Evolution claims to be science that is evidence-based.
Are you saying your claims aren't based on evidence?
They aren't based on *scientific* evidence.
Evolution can be observed in your yard. In your home. In a flowerpot. On a farm.
Anywhere there's life.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Theistic creation claims the appearance of humans was a miracle.
Or the creation of Hutts was a miracle, and humans were an accident.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
what do you have to back up your claims on why and how
man is here?
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
I can construct a consistent creationism. I don't know if you can.
However consistency is not sufficient for believability. A consistent
creationism requires a trickster god who made people very intelligent but
punishes us if we use that god-given intelligence.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-13 10:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
You observed dinosaurs morph to birds?
We have observed the evolution of wheat, pigs, influenza, and other life over
the last five thousand years. We can observe the evolution of DNA over multiple
thousands of years.

These observations support the explanation that fossils show an evolution of
dinosaurs to birds.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Wally W.
2017-08-13 10:46:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
You observed dinosaurs morph to birds?
We have observed the evolution of wheat, pigs, influenza, and other life over
the last five thousand years. We can observe the evolution of DNA over multiple
thousands of years.
Selective breeding of pigs is not random evolution making complexity
from lesser forms.

The influenza has not evolved. It is still influenza.
Post by Siri Cruise
These observations support the explanation that fossils show an evolution of
dinosaurs to birds.
As with the greenie faith-based spew about CO2, correlation is not
causation.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-13 11:31:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
You observed dinosaurs morph to birds?
We have observed the evolution of wheat, pigs, influenza, and other life over
the last five thousand years. We can observe the evolution of DNA over multiple
thousands of years.
Selective breeding of pigs is not random evolution making complexity
from lesser forms.
Thanks for admitting the reality of selection.
Post by Wally W.
The influenza has not evolved. It is still influenza.
And one year's flu shot will protect you forever more.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 16:28:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
The influenza has not evolved. It is still influenza.
And one year's flu shot will protect you forever more.
Wow, that's an incredible LIE!

Btw flu doesn't "evolve", it morphs - but it remains functionally the same.

You dumb cunt.
Wally W.
2017-08-13 16:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
You observed dinosaurs morph to birds?
We have observed the evolution of wheat, pigs, influenza, and other life over
the last five thousand years. We can observe the evolution of DNA over multiple
thousands of years.
Selective breeding of pigs is not random evolution making complexity
from lesser forms.
Thanks for admitting the reality of selection.
I admitted the reality of Mendelian genetics, not astronomically
improbable sequence of events whereby random mutations started with a
single-cell organism and followed only beneficial mutations to result
in complex, bipedal humans with a large, complex brains, binaural
multifrequency hearing that provides direction-finding, binocular
color-vision that provides range-finding, etc., ... and elephants ...
and tigers ... and fish ...
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
The influenza has not evolved. It is still influenza.
And one year's flu shot will protect you forever more.
You missed (or refused to acknowlege) the point. One still gets a
*flu* shot the next year. One doesn't get a "mystery-organism shot"
because last year's flu did not evolve into "mystery-organism."
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 16:51:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
Post by Siri Cruise
And one year's flu shot will protect you forever more.
You missed (or refused to acknowlege) the point. One still gets a
*flu* shot the next year. One doesn't get a "mystery-organism shot"
because last year's flu did not evolve into "mystery-organism."
Precisely!
Just Wondering
2017-08-14 09:17:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
You observed dinosaurs morph to birds?
We have observed the evolution of wheat, pigs, influenza, and other life
over the last five thousand years. We can observe the evolution of DNA over
multiple thousands of years.
Selective breeding of pigs is not random evolution making complexity
from lesser forms.
Thanks for admitting the reality of selection.
Come back when pigs have evolved into something that is not a pig.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
The influenza has not evolved. It is still influenza.
And one year's flu shot will protect you forever more.
Come back when influenza has evolved into something that is not influenza.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-14 10:55:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
You observed dinosaurs morph to birds?
We have observed the evolution of wheat, pigs, influenza, and other life
over the last five thousand years. We can observe the evolution of DNA over
multiple thousands of years.
Selective breeding of pigs is not random evolution making complexity
from lesser forms.
Thanks for admitting the reality of selection.
Come back when pigs have evolved into something that is not a pig.
Are domestic pigs the same as wild pigs? I don't visit pig farms; do they still
have tusks? Do domestic sheep have the same kind of horns as wild cousins? Are
dogs wolves? How easily can you collect the grains of wild grass to make bread?
What do wild apples taste like?
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
The influenza has not evolved. It is still influenza.
And one year's flu shot will protect you forever more.
Come back when influenza has evolved into something that is not influenza.
It's not spanish influenza.

And you're still an idiot.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Just Wondering
2017-08-15 01:50:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
You observed dinosaurs morph to birds?
We have observed the evolution of wheat, pigs, influenza, and other life
over the last five thousand years. We can observe the evolution of DNA over
multiple thousands of years.
Selective breeding of pigs is not random evolution making complexity
from lesser forms.
Thanks for admitting the reality of selection.
Come back when pigs have evolved into something that is not a pig.
Are domestic pigs the same as wild pigs?
As a species, yes.
Post by Siri Cruise
I don't visit pig farms; do they still have tusks?
Superficial "racial" differences: Are hirsute men and bald men
different species?
Post by Siri Cruise
Do domestic sheep have the same kind of horns as wild cousins?
Can the two breed and have fertile offspring?
Post by Siri Cruise
Are dogs wolves?
Actually, except for people with strange definitions of what is a
species, they can interbreed and their offspring are fertile, so yes.
Post by Siri Cruise
How easily can you collect the grains of wild
grass to make bread? What do wild apples taste like?
Irrelevant.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
The influenza has not evolved. It is still influenza.
And one year's flu shot will protect you forever more.
Come back when influenza has evolved into something that is not influenza.
It's not spanish influenza.
It hasn't evolved into something that is not influenza.
In fact, you can't come up with proof of a single example
where ANY one species actually came into existence because
it evolved from a different species.
Post by Siri Cruise
And you're still an idiot.
And you don't realize what a great deal of faith it
requires to believe in evolution.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-08-14 14:05:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
You observed dinosaurs morph to birds?
We have observed the evolution of wheat, pigs, influenza, and other life
over the last five thousand years. We can observe the evolution of DNA over
multiple thousands of years.
Selective breeding of pigs is not random evolution making complexity
from lesser forms.
Thanks for admitting the reality of selection.
Come back when pigs have evolved into something that is not a pig.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
The influenza has not evolved. It is still influenza.
And one year's flu shot will protect you forever more.
Come back when influenza has evolved into something that is not influenza.
Why do you think that's what evolution is?
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Scout
2017-08-14 00:16:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
You observed dinosaurs morph to birds?
We have observed the evolution of wheat, pigs, influenza, and other life over
the last five thousand years. We can observe the evolution of DNA over multiple
thousands of years.
Selective breeding of pigs is not random evolution making complexity
from lesser forms.
But who says evolution is purely random?

Oh, and we've seen evolution in action.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2346408/Cats-sheeps-clothing-The-poodle-cat-quirky-gene-declared-breed-own.html

The gene for this just appeared, it is transferable and dominate, and should
it provide some sort of evolutionary benefit then it will spread and become
the norm for cats.

That's called E V O L U T I O N.

Now, such genes could appear by random, or it could be something that
regularly occurs based on some unknown mechanism. After that whether the
gene succeeds or fades out all depends on whether it provides an
evolutionary advantage.

It also shows how dominate characteristics can become recessive and may even
be eventually 'weeded out' of the gene pool.

Here is a recent example which we can trace back to it's exact origin.

By the way, as noted in the article these cats are classified as their own
species., because we have an evolutionary branch that just formed.
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 16:27:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
We have observed the evolution of wheat, pigs, influenza, and other life over
the last five thousand years.
But not humans, cope.
Scout
2017-08-14 00:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by SeaSnake
Post by Siri Cruise
We have observed the evolution of wheat, pigs, influenza, and other life over
the last five thousand years.
But not humans, cope.
Actually according to the bible, man has evolved.

Otherwise, we would be living to well over 900 years old.

or stepping forward a bit in the bible, we would be living over 400 years
old.

Stepping forward a bit more.....200 years old...

Sorry, but even the bible shows evolution in man......unless you want to
tell us the Bible is wrong?
Just Wondering
2017-08-14 09:20:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by SeaSnake
Post by Siri Cruise
We have observed the evolution of wheat, pigs, influenza, and other life over
the last five thousand years.
But not humans, cope.
Actually according to the bible, man has evolved.
Otherwise, we would be living to well over 900 years old.
or stepping forward a bit in the bible, we would be living over 400
years old.
Stepping forward a bit more.....200 years old...
Sorry, but even the bible shows evolution in man......unless you want to
tell us the Bible is wrong?
Evolution refers to the evolution of species, not differences within a
species. Shoot, biologists have a hard enough time just defining what a
species IS.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-08-14 14:06:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by SeaSnake
Post by Siri Cruise
We have observed the evolution of wheat, pigs, influenza, and other life over
the last five thousand years.
But not humans, cope.
Actually according to the bible, man has evolved.
Otherwise, we would be living to well over 900 years old.
or stepping forward a bit in the bible, we would be living over 400
years old.
Stepping forward a bit more.....200 years old...
Sorry, but even the bible shows evolution in man......unless you want to
tell us the Bible is wrong?
Evolution refers to the evolution of species, not differences within a
species. Shoot, biologists have a hard enough time just defining what a
species IS.
What does that have to do with anything?
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Christopher A. Lee
2017-08-14 15:10:02 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 09:06:44 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by SeaSnake
Post by Siri Cruise
We have observed the evolution of wheat, pigs, influenza, and other life over
the last five thousand years.
But not humans, cope.
Actually according to the bible, man has evolved.
Otherwise, we would be living to well over 900 years old.
or stepping forward a bit in the bible, we would be living over 400
years old.
Stepping forward a bit more.....200 years old...
Sorry, but even the bible shows evolution in man......unless you want to
tell us the Bible is wrong?
Evolution refers to the evolution of species, not differences within a
species. Shoot, biologists have a hard enough time just defining what a
species IS.
Yet another pig-ignorant, pontificating, religious loonie who needs to
get an education.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
What does that have to do with anything?
Evolution is the change in allele frequency in populations.
!! Atheist ------------------------------
2017-08-15 00:03:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Evolution is the change in allele frequency in populations.
It is more than that cop-out, dickhead.
--
There is no verifiable evidence of any god(s). None whatsoever.
Extortion (Believe or Burn) is *THE* foundation of Christianity.
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 16:26:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life...
...of sparrows...you dumb meth whore.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-08-14 01:56:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by SeaSnake
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Almost all of the transitional forms in this list do not actually represent ancestors of any living group or other transitional forms. Darwin noted that transitional forms could be considered common ancestors, direct ancestors or collateral ancestors of living or extinct groups, but believed that finding actual common or direct ancestors linking different groups was unlikely.[1][2] Collateral ancestors are relatives like cousins in genealogies in which they are not in your direct line of descent but do share a common ancestor (in this case it is a grandparent). This kind of thinking can be extended to groups of life. For instance, the well-known Archaeopteryx is a transitional form between non-avian dinosaurs and birds, but it is not the most recent common ancestor of all birds nor is it a direct ancestor of any species of bird alive today. Rather, it is considered an extinct close evolutionary "cousin" to the direct ancestors. This may not always be the case, though, as some fossil species are proposed to be directly ancestral to others, like how Australopithecus anamensis is most likely to be ancestral to Australopithecus afarensis.[3]
Post by SeaSnake
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life...
...of sparrows...you dumb meth whore.
Just Wondering
2017-08-14 09:14:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Please provide an example where scientists have observed a solution of
non-live chemical compounds evolve into a living organism.
Please provide an example where scientists have observed a single-celled
organism evolve into a multi-celled organism.
Please provide an example where scientists have observed am asexually
reproducing organism evolve into an organism that produces sexually.
Please provide an example where scientists have observed an organism
without a circulatory system evolve into an organism with a circulatory
system.
Please provide an example where scientists have observed two separate
organisms that once lived just fine without each other evolve into a
symbiotic relationship where neither organism can live without the other.
Once you have provided those examples, I have a few thousand others to
request.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-14 11:10:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Please provide an example where scientists have observed a solution of
non-live chemical compounds evolve into a living organism.
Evolution cannot explain abiogenesis. They're separate studies.
Post by Just Wondering
Please provide an example where scientists have observed a single-celled
organism evolve into a multi-celled organism.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4071512/

One of the predictions of game theory is that cooperative behaviours are
vulnerable to exploitation by selfish individuals, but this result seemingly
contradicts the survival of cooperation observed in nature. In this review, we
will introduce game theoretical concepts that lead to this conclusion and show
how the spatial competition dynamics between microorganisms can be used to model
the survival and maintenance of cooperation.
Post by Just Wondering
Please provide an example where scientists have observed am asexually
reproducing organism evolve into an organism that produces sexually.
Anyway this will be your evolving list of 'Yes, they observed all these other
things, but as long as I can list something that hasn't been observed, I'll
pretend they haven't observed anything.'

You used to have 'but they haven't observed speciation' on the list. But then
when speciation was observed, you changed it new 'kinds', this time refusing to
objectively define 'kinds' so you can keep this on your list much longer. We've
seen you slip the ace out of your sleeve: your game is over. You're only fooling
yourself.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Jeanne Douglas
2017-08-14 14:04:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Please provide an example where scientists have observed a solution of
non-live chemical compounds evolve into a living organism.
Why would scientists have observed something they've never said happened?
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Christopher A. Lee
2017-08-14 15:06:37 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 09:04:52 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Please provide an example where scientists have observed a solution of
non-live chemical compounds evolve into a living organism.
Why would scientists have observed something they've never said happened?
The moron has been given examples from abiogenesis research, like this
one...

This link has been posted over and over again....

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

It's an article in the Harbinger, which repeats a presentation made by
Sidney Fox in the Vatican of all places.

He's not the only one - Stephen Hawking and others have done similar
presentations there.

Fox wasn't even the first to produce amino acids and even proteins
from them - but he _did_ discover that they would form simple cells
which satisfied the four criteria for life; they metabolised,
reproduced, responded to stimuli and self-organised.

His experiments are routinely repeated as course work even at high
school level in many countries where science education hasn't been
emasculated because of fundamentalism.

He even says elsewhere that these simple cells evolve nucleic acids.
This link is to an abstract...

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00700418

Fox's Wikipedia entry even says these protocells also evolved a
bilipid cell wall, but I don't usually mention this because it
references a book to which I don't have access.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-14 16:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Please provide an example where scientists have observed a solution of
non-live chemical compounds evolve into a living organism.
Why would scientists have observed something they've never said happened?
Somehow a dead universe came to life.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Jeanne Douglas
2017-08-15 03:19:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Please provide an example where scientists have observed a solution of
non-live chemical compounds evolve into a living organism.
Why would scientists have observed something they've never said happened?
Somehow a dead universe came to life.
What "dead universe"?
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
de chucka
2017-08-14 20:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Please provide an example where scientists have observed a solution of
non-live chemical compounds evolve into a living organism.
Define living
!! Atheist ------------------------------
2017-08-15 00:36:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Wally W.
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
We can see the evidence that evolution has occurred, but we don't yet know
exactly how it occurred. So much evidence that we now know it is *fact*.
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Big fat lie. Never observed (a new species appeared).
Post by Just Wondering
Please provide an example where scientists have observed a single-celled
organism evolve into a multi-celled organism.
Never been observed.
Post by Just Wondering
Please provide an example where scientists have observed am asexually
reproducing organism evolve into an organism that produces sexually.
Never been observed.
Post by Just Wondering
Please provide an example where scientists have observed an organism
without a circulatory system evolve into an organism with a circulatory
system.
Never been observed.
Post by Just Wondering
Please provide an example where scientists have observed two separate
organisms that once lived just fine without each other evolve into a
symbiotic relationship where neither organism can live without the other.
Never been observed.
--
There is no verifiable evidence of any god(s). None whatsoever.
Extortion (Believe or Burn) is *THE* foundation of Christianity.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-15 01:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Siri Cruise
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Big fat lie. Never observed (a new species appeared).
You really aren't the sharpest crayon in the box, are you?
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
george152
2017-08-15 05:07:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Siri Cruise
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Big fat lie. Never observed (a new species appeared).
You really aren't the sharpest crayon in the box, are you?
Well, there's always gliding tree snakes as an evolutionary proof

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
de chucka
2017-08-15 01:42:25 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Siri Cruise
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Big fat lie. Never observed (a new species appeared).
https://www.wsj.com/articles/scientists-observe-wasps-evolving-into-new-species-1446229404
Just Wondering
2017-08-15 02:45:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Siri Cruise
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Big fat lie. Never observed (a new species appeared).
https://www.wsj.com/articles/scientists-observe-wasps-evolving-into-new-species-1446229404
Etymologists-observe-scientist-redefine-the-word-"species"
de chucka
2017-08-15 02:48:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Siri Cruise
Evolution is an observed process in both wild and domestic life.
Big fat lie. Never observed (a new species appeared).
https://www.wsj.com/articles/scientists-observe-wasps-evolving-into-new-species-1446229404
Etymologists-observe-scientist-redefine-the-word-"species"
That is pathetic even for you
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 16:14:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
Well yes, yes it is!
Scout
2017-08-13 23:48:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Ok, so exactly what pathway can you find evidence of to explain how and why
we exist as we do today.
and don't try asserting fantasized processes which you have no evidence of,
or you will be in the same boat as you claim that evolution is.
False comparison.
No, perfectly valid comparison.
Yes, it is a false comparison.
No, but you've shown you aren't interested in facts.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
If you're telling me they are wrong,
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Except it has produced missing links. The problem is that creates more
missing links. You discount the evidence that exists because you feel
everyone should lie down on their parents to die.

Meanwhile what about the missing links in creationism? When are you going to
find ANY of them?
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
then
you should have evidence that shows proof of another means.
False demand.
IOW, you've got nothing to back up your theories, and you complain the other
theories are missing evidence.

That's still more than your theory has to offer.

Come back when you can produce any evidence to support the theory of
creationism.

Until then, I think I will just stick with science, even though it's
incomplete and fragmented, but at least they are looking for and have found
evidence to support their theories.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-08-14 01:54:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Ok, so exactly what pathway can you find evidence of to explain how and why
we exist as we do today.
and don't try asserting fantasized processes which you have no evidence of,
or you will be in the same boat as you claim that evolution is.
False comparison.
No, perfectly valid comparison.
Yes, it is a false comparison.
Post by Scout
If you're telling me they are wrong,
I'm telling you that evolution is faith-based because it can't produce
the missing links.
Post by Scout
then
you should have evidence that shows proof of another means.
False demand.
It's like the greenies screeching about global warming and claiming it
is due to human emissions of CO2. If one is a "denier" and doesn't
accept their correlation (that is inconsistent and over a short time
span) then they will demand, "What else could it beeeee?"
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Evolution claims to be science that is evidence-based.
Are you saying your claims aren't based on evidence?
They aren't based on *scientific* evidence.
Evolution claims to be based on scientific evidence. It is not. It is
faith-based.
That's a lie, it is the result of evidence, observation, testing and some hypothesizing that is then tested. The question nobody who is a creationist ever answers is why would every scientific organization and college or university, including most religious ones accept that evolution is a fact and they never have an answer for what possible reason science would want to hoax the world into believeing evolution to be real if it isn't.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
Post by Wally W.
Theistic creation claims the appearance of humans was a miracle.
Yep, that seems to be your proof. Point at the sky and say "He did it"
(HDI).
Why did the flower bloom? (HDI)
Why did the bridge collapse? (HDI)
It might have been because of some bad calcuations; or the contractor
might have cut corners.
Post by Scout
Amazing curiousity there, you assert to know the answer before you even ask
the question.
You are imagining what I know.
Post by Scout
Whatever you want to ask about....(HDI).
Why does the light turn on? (HDI).
Post by Wally W.
Greenies claim the existence of *other* humans is a curse.
I'm more concerned about your claims, that what you claim others believe.
Be as concerned as you choose to be.
Post by Scout
So.....once again....other than pointing at a being who's even existence
hasn't been proven....
What do you mean "proven?"
Don't you know what proven means?
Post by Wally W.
Post by Scout
what do you have to back up your claims on why and how
man is here?
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
No, it is not. Theistic creation starts with a presupposition and then looks only for evidence that confirms that presupposition and ignores anything contradictory. It is not objective.

There are literally thousands of fossils that are transitional.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03

https://ncse.com/book/export/html/1764
First, a note on terminology. The phrase "neo-Darwinism" is not widely used by scientists, and may reflect a desire by creationists to dismiss Darwin's ideas merely as another "-ism," rather than a robust scientific theory. A PubMed search of over 18 million scientific articles found 131 variations on "neo-Darwinism," compared to 226,476 uses of "evolution."

Explore Evolution compounds many errors in attempting to claim that fossils representing evolutionary transitions are rare. The first error is its reliance on concepts like 'missing links' and 'transitional forms'. These terms are outdated and founded in incorrect and archaic ways of categorizing life. Until relatively recently, the classification system used to group living things did not aim to represent true evolutionary relationships, and some groups contained only some descendants of a common ancestor, excluding others. For example, birds were not traditionally placed within the reptiles while the 'Sarcopterygii' (lungfish, coelocanths, etc.) classically excludes tetrapods. When we try to connect these poorly defined groups with the grade school evolutionary view that, "fish gave rise to amphibians, which gave rise to reptiles, which gave rise to…," the problems with the underlying classification system confuse the matter. Some so-called 'fish' were more closely related to amphibians than to other so-called 'fish' – and some so-called 'reptiles' were more closely related to non-reptiles (e.g., birds) than they were to other 'reptiles'. Drawing upon discontinuities produced by our misclassification, people sought to find 'transitions' or 'links' between wrongly grouped 'fish' and 'amphibians' or 'reptiles' and 'birds' – historically, and quite literally creating the concept of 'missing link' or 'transitional form.'

Fortunately, evolutionary biologists have been doing away with such artificial groups for some time now. We no longer accept that birds evolved from reptiles and that birds are not reptiles themselves - since the term Reptilia now includes birds. Viewing life's history and classification in this more realistic (i.e., evolutionary) context – where we name groups based on a common ancestor plus all of it's descendants – we come to realize that quite literally, all critters have 'transitional' features. In other words, all living things possess a combination of ancestral and derived traits. The shared derived traits (discussed further in the response to chapter 4) inform us of close relationships, while ancestral traits include ancient features retained from an early evolutionary heritage. For example, salmon – which most people wouldn't have any trouble classifying – retain paired appendages and jaws – ancestral traits shared with species like sharks – but also have derived traits like bone that forms from a cartilaginous precursor – a trait which sharks do not have, but which tetrapods do. This sort of bone is a derived feature linking salmon as closer relatives of tetrapods than sharks are, even though salmon still have fins and other 'fishy' traits that sharks share.

https://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html
One frequently cited "hole" in the theory: Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false.

As key evidence for evolution and species' gradual change over time, transitional creatures should resemble intermediate species, having skeletal and other body features in common with two distinct groups of animals, such as reptiles and mammals, or fish and amphibians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Almost all of the transitional forms in this list do not actually represent ancestors of any living group or other transitional forms. Darwin noted that transitional forms could be considered common ancestors, direct ancestors or collateral ancestors of living or extinct groups, but believed that finding actual common or direct ancestors linking different groups was unlikely.[1][2] Collateral ancestors are relatives like cousins in genealogies in which they are not in your direct line of descent but do share a common ancestor (in this case it is a grandparent). This kind of thinking can be extended to groups of life. For instance, the well-known Archaeopteryx is a transitional form between non-avian dinosaurs and birds, but it is not the most recent common ancestor of all birds nor is it a direct ancestor of any species of bird alive today. Rather, it is considered an extinct close evolutionary "cousin" to the direct ancestors. This may not always be the case, though, as some fossil species are proposed to be directly ancestral to others, like how Australopithecus anamensis is most likely to be ancestral to Australopithecus afarensis.[3]

Creationists are the ones engaging is fantasy.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-08-14 01:33:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand
that there is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
An opinion you get to have.
Post by Andrew
Therefore the article you posted would be properly noted
to be labeled as fake news and fake science .
Nope, it's evidence based.
Post by Andrew
"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a
lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested,
but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bed
time story--amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not
scientific
Wrong again.
Post by Andrew
"From our vantage point in the present, we arrange fossils
in an order that reflects gradual acquisition of what we
see in ourselves. We do not seek the truth; we create it
after the fact, to suit our own prejudices."
More bullshit.
Post by Andrew
"Many paleontologists believe that ancestor/descendent
lineages can be traced from the fossil record, and my
book is intended to debunk this view..old-style, traditional
evolutionary biology -- the type that feels it must tell a
story, and is therefore more appealing to news reporters
and makers of documentaries -- is unscientific.
Evidence of your lack of scientific understanding.
Post by Andrew
"New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting
story. We call these new discoveries "missing links", as
if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object
for our contemplation, and not what it really is: . . . . .
a completely human invention created after the fact,
shaped to accord with human prejudices.... Each fossil
represents an isolated point, with no knowable
connection to any other given fossil, and all float
around in an overwhelming sea of gaps."
~ Henry Gee, Senior editor, "Nature"
It's about time you folk esteemed truth
of greater worth than fantasized stories.
You first. Prove god then you can discuss what he did or didn't do.
A***@yahoo.com
2017-08-11 05:20:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/ancient-infant-ape-
skull-
sheds-light-ancestor-all-humans-and-living-apes
*Ancient Infant Ape Skull Sheds Light on the Ancestor of All
Humans and Living Apes* by Michael Price
Aug. 9, 2017
Anthropologists have waited decades to find the complete
cranium of a Miocene ape from Africa -- one that lived in the
hazy period before the human lineage split off from the common
ancestors we share with chimpanzees some 7 million years ago.
Now, scientists in Kenya have found their prize at last: an
almost perfectly preserved skull roughly the size of a
baseball. The catch? It’s from an infant. That means that
although it can give scientists a rough idea of what the common
ancestor to all living apes and humans would have looked like,
drawing other meaningful conclusions could be challenging.
“This is the sort of thing that the fossil record loves to do
to us,” says James Rossie, a biological anthropologist at the
State University of New York in Stony Brook who wasn’t
involved with the study. “The problem is that we learn from
fossils by comparing them to others. When there are no other
infant Miocene ape skulls to which to make those comparisons,
your hands are tied”.
The remarkably complete skull was discovered in the Turkana
Basin of northern Kenya 3 years ago. As the sun sank behind the
Napudet Hills west of Lake Turkana, primate paleontologist
Isaiah Nengo of De Anza College in Cupertino, California, and
his team started walking back to their jeep. Kenyan fossil
hunter John Ekusi raced ahead to smoke a cigarette. Suddenly he
began circling in place. When Nengo caught up, he saw a
dirt-clogged eye socket staring up at him. “There was this
skull just sticking out of the ground,” Nengo recalls. “It
was incredible because we had been going up and down that path
for weeks and never noticed it”.
The team carefully extracted the fossil from the rocky ground
using small dental picks and brushes. Nengo knew immediately it
was a primate skull, but that he wouldn’t learn much more
until he and colleagues performed a more sophisticated
analysis.
At the Noble Gas Laboratory at Rutgers University in New
Brunswick, New Jersey, researchers measured argon
isotopes—which decay at a fixed, predictable rate—within
the fossil’s rock layer, revealing that it was about 13
million years old. Back then, the dry, rocky landscape of
today’s Turkana Basin was a lush rainforest.
Although the fossil looks a bit like a gibbon skull on first
blush, Nengo says, its dental pattern and teeth shape suggest
its closest relatives are other Miocene fossil primates from
the genus *Nyanzapithecus*, also found in Kenya. Yet its molars
are much larger than those of the known nyanzapithecines,
indicating a new species. The researchers named it *N. alesi*,
or Alesi for short, after the Turkana word for “ancestor”.
Extremely sensitive x-ray imaging performed at the European
Synchrotron Radiation Facility in Grenoble, France, allowed the
team to count growth lines in the fossil’s unerupted adult
teeth like tree rings, telling them Alesi was about 485 days
(or 1 year and 4 months) old when it died. The x-rays also
revealed the presence of bony ear tubes in the skull, which act
as a balance organ. Primatologists have long debated whether
the Nyanzapithecus genus belonged to the ape or monkey line,
but the presence of these tubes, combined with the size and
shape of the teeth, solidly mark Alesi -- and by extension the
other nyanzapithecines -- as apes
[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v548/n7666/full/nature234
5
6.html?foxtrotcallback=true], the researchers report today in
'Nature'. What’s more, they claim, the ear tubes present
strong evidence that it’s an evolutionary cousin to the
ancestral line of apes from which humans and living apes
derive.
That could help answer a long-standing question in primate
evolution: Did the common ancestor to living apes and humans
evolve in Africa or Eurasia? Nengo says the new finding
supports an African origin. “Africa has been acting like a
petri dish for millions of years, conducting experiments in
evolution,” he says. “Humans and our close ape relatives
are just the latest evolutionary experiments to come out of
that petri dish.”
David Begun, an anthropologist at the University of Toronto in
Canada, isn’t convinced. He points to the fact that fossil
hominines—a group whose descendants include African apes and
humans—have been found in Europe dating to 12.5 million years
ago, but they don’t conclusively show up in the African
fossil record until 7 million years ago. To him, that suggests
the common ancestor evolved in Europe before heading back into
Africa. The discovery of N. alesi does nothing to change that.
“*Nyanzapithecus* is an early ape,” Begun says. “Whether
it’s the closest thing we know to the last common ancestor...
is questionable.” ----------
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
. . .
That's an interesting bedtime story.
Tim
2017-08-13 20:04:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/ancient-infant-ape-
skull-
sheds-light-ancestor-all-humans-and-living-apes
*Ancient Infant Ape Skull Sheds Light on the Ancestor of All
Humans and Living Apes* by Michael Price
Aug. 9, 2017
Anthropologists have waited decades to find the complete
cranium of a Miocene ape from Africa -- one that lived in the
hazy period before the human lineage split off from the common
ancestors we share with chimpanzees some 7 million years ago.
Now, scientists in Kenya have found their prize at last: an
almost perfectly preserved skull roughly the size of a
baseball. The catch? It’s from an infant. That means that
although it can give scientists a rough idea of what the common
ancestor to all living apes and humans would have looked like,
drawing other meaningful conclusions could be challenging.
“This is the sort of thing that the fossil record loves to do
to us,” says James Rossie, a biological anthropologist at the
State University of New York in Stony Brook who wasn’t
involved with the study. “The problem is that we learn from
fossils by comparing them to others. When there are no other
infant Miocene ape skulls to which to make those comparisons,
your hands are tied”.
The remarkably complete skull was discovered in the Turkana
Basin of northern Kenya 3 years ago. As the sun sank behind the
Napudet Hills west of Lake Turkana, primate paleontologist
Isaiah Nengo of De Anza College in Cupertino, California, and
his team started walking back to their jeep. Kenyan fossil
hunter John Ekusi raced ahead to smoke a cigarette. Suddenly he
began circling in place. When Nengo caught up, he saw a
dirt-clogged eye socket staring up at him. “There was this
skull just sticking out of the ground,” Nengo recalls. “It
was incredible because we had been going up and down that path
for weeks and never noticed it”.
The team carefully extracted the fossil from the rocky ground
using small dental picks and brushes. Nengo knew immediately it
was a primate skull, but that he wouldn’t learn much more
until he and colleagues performed a more sophisticated
analysis.
At the Noble Gas Laboratory at Rutgers University in New
Brunswick, New Jersey, researchers measured argon
isotopes—which decay at a fixed, predictable rate—within
the fossil’s rock layer, revealing that it was about 13
million years old. Back then, the dry, rocky landscape of
today’s Turkana Basin was a lush rainforest.
Although the fossil looks a bit like a gibbon skull on first
blush, Nengo says, its dental pattern and teeth shape suggest
its closest relatives are other Miocene fossil primates from
the genus *Nyanzapithecus*, also found in Kenya. Yet its molars
are much larger than those of the known nyanzapithecines,
indicating a new species. The researchers named it *N. alesi*,
or Alesi for short, after the Turkana word for “ancestor”.
Extremely sensitive x-ray imaging performed at the European
Synchrotron Radiation Facility in Grenoble, France, allowed the
team to count growth lines in the fossil’s unerupted adult
teeth like tree rings, telling them Alesi was about 485 days
(or 1 year and 4 months) old when it died. The x-rays also
revealed the presence of bony ear tubes in the skull, which act
as a balance organ. Primatologists have long debated whether
the Nyanzapithecus genus belonged to the ape or monkey line,
but the presence of these tubes, combined with the size and
shape of the teeth, solidly mark Alesi -- and by extension the
other nyanzapithecines -- as apes
[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v548/n7666/full/nature234
5
6.html?foxtrotcallback=true], the researchers report today in
'Nature'. What’s more, they claim, the ear tubes present
strong evidence that it’s an evolutionary cousin to the
ancestral line of apes from which humans and living apes
derive.
That could help answer a long-standing question in primate
evolution: Did the common ancestor to living apes and humans
evolve in Africa or Eurasia? Nengo says the new finding
supports an African origin. “Africa has been acting like a
petri dish for millions of years, conducting experiments in
evolution,” he says. “Humans and our close ape relatives
are just the latest evolutionary experiments to come out of
that petri dish.”
David Begun, an anthropologist at the University of Toronto in
Canada, isn’t convinced. He points to the fact that fossil
hominines—a group whose descendants include African apes and
humans—have been found in Europe dating to 12.5 million years
ago, but they don’t conclusively show up in the African
fossil record until 7 million years ago. To him, that suggests
the common ancestor evolved in Europe before heading back into
Africa. The discovery of N. alesi does nothing to change that.
“*Nyanzapithecus* is an early ape,” Begun says. “Whether
it’s the closest thing we know to the last common ancestor...
is questionable.” ----------
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
. . .
That's an interesting bedtime story.
There you go getting emotional about the TOE again, fake Christian. Are we just supposed to accept your statement? Is that what you call a scientific proof of the failure of evolution?


Why not provide a step by step refutation of what the article claims?
%
2017-08-14 01:01:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/ancient-infant-ape-
skull-
sheds-light-ancestor-all-humans-and-living-apes
*Ancient Infant Ape Skull Sheds Light on the Ancestor of All
Humans and Living Apes* by Michael Price
Aug. 9, 2017
Anthropologists have waited decades to find the complete
cranium of a Miocene ape from Africa -- one that lived in the
hazy period before the human lineage split off from the common
ancestors we share with chimpanzees some 7 million years ago.
Now, scientists in Kenya have found their prize at last: an
almost perfectly preserved skull roughly the size of a
baseball. The catch? It’s from an infant. That means that
although it can give scientists a rough idea of what the common
ancestor to all living apes and humans would have looked like,
drawing other meaningful conclusions could be challenging.
“This is the sort of thing that the fossil record loves to do
to us,” says James Rossie, a biological anthropologist at the
State University of New York in Stony Brook who wasn’t
involved with the study. “The problem is that we learn from
fossils by comparing them to others. When there are no other
infant Miocene ape skulls to which to make those comparisons,
your hands are tied”.
The remarkably complete skull was discovered in the Turkana
Basin of northern Kenya 3 years ago. As the sun sank behind the
Napudet Hills west of Lake Turkana, primate paleontologist
Isaiah Nengo of De Anza College in Cupertino, California, and
his team started walking back to their jeep. Kenyan fossil
hunter John Ekusi raced ahead to smoke a cigarette. Suddenly he
began circling in place. When Nengo caught up, he saw a
dirt-clogged eye socket staring up at him. “There was this
skull just sticking out of the ground,” Nengo recalls. “It
was incredible because we had been going up and down that path
for weeks and never noticed it”.
The team carefully extracted the fossil from the rocky ground
using small dental picks and brushes. Nengo knew immediately it
was a primate skull, but that he wouldn’t learn much more
until he and colleagues performed a more sophisticated
analysis.
At the Noble Gas Laboratory at Rutgers University in New
Brunswick, New Jersey, researchers measured argon
isotopes—which decay at a fixed, predictable rate—within
the fossil’s rock layer, revealing that it was about 13
million years old. Back then, the dry, rocky landscape of
today’s Turkana Basin was a lush rainforest.
Although the fossil looks a bit like a gibbon skull on first
blush, Nengo says, its dental pattern and teeth shape suggest
its closest relatives are other Miocene fossil primates from
the genus *Nyanzapithecus*, also found in Kenya. Yet its molars
are much larger than those of the known nyanzapithecines,
indicating a new species. The researchers named it *N. alesi*,
or Alesi for short, after the Turkana word for “ancestor”.
Extremely sensitive x-ray imaging performed at the European
Synchrotron Radiation Facility in Grenoble, France, allowed the
team to count growth lines in the fossil’s unerupted adult
teeth like tree rings, telling them Alesi was about 485 days
(or 1 year and 4 months) old when it died. The x-rays also
revealed the presence of bony ear tubes in the skull, which act
as a balance organ. Primatologists have long debated whether
the Nyanzapithecus genus belonged to the ape or monkey line,
but the presence of these tubes, combined with the size and
shape of the teeth, solidly mark Alesi -- and by extension the
other nyanzapithecines -- as apes
[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v548/n7666/full/nature234
5
6.html?foxtrotcallback=true], the researchers report today in
'Nature'. What’s more, they claim, the ear tubes present
strong evidence that it’s an evolutionary cousin to the
ancestral line of apes from which humans and living apes
derive.
That could help answer a long-standing question in primate
evolution: Did the common ancestor to living apes and humans
evolve in Africa or Eurasia? Nengo says the new finding
supports an African origin. “Africa has been acting like a
petri dish for millions of years, conducting experiments in
evolution,” he says. “Humans and our close ape relatives
are just the latest evolutionary experiments to come out of
that petri dish.”
David Begun, an anthropologist at the University of Toronto in
Canada, isn’t convinced. He points to the fact that fossil
hominines—a group whose descendants include African apes and
humans—have been found in Europe dating to 12.5 million years
ago, but they don’t conclusively show up in the African
fossil record until 7 million years ago. To him, that suggests
the common ancestor evolved in Europe before heading back into
Africa. The discovery of N. alesi does nothing to change that.
“*Nyanzapithecus* is an early ape,” Begun says. “Whether
it’s the closest thing we know to the last common ancestor...
is questionable.” ----------
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
. . .
That's an interesting bedtime story.
There you go getting emotional about the TOE again, fake Christian. Are we just supposed to accept your statement? Is that what you call a scientific proof of the failure of evolution?
Why not provide a step by step refutation of what the article claims?
that's your job
Tracy12
2017-08-11 11:58:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/ancient-infant-ape-
skull-
sheds-light-ancestor-all-humans-and-living-apes
*Ancient Infant Ape Skull Sheds Light on the Ancestor of All
Humans and Living Apes* by Michael Price
Aug. 9, 2017
Anthropologists have waited decades to find the complete
cranium of a Miocene ape from Africa -- one that lived in the
hazy period before the human lineage split off from the
common ancestors we share with chimpanzees some 7 million
years ago. Now, scientists in Kenya have found their prize at
last: an almost perfectly preserved skull roughly the size of
a baseball. The catch? It’s from an infant. That means that
although it can give scientists a rough idea of what the
common ancestor to all living apes and humans would have
looked like, drawing other meaningful conclusions could be
challenging.
“This is the sort of thing that the fossil record loves to
do to us,” says James Rossie, a biological anthropologist
at the State University of New York in Stony Brook who
wasn’t involved with the study. “The problem is that we
learn from fossils by comparing them to others. When there
are no other infant Miocene ape skulls to which to make those
comparisons, your hands are tied”.
The remarkably complete skull was discovered in the Turkana
Basin of northern Kenya 3 years ago. As the sun sank behind
the Napudet Hills west of Lake Turkana, primate
paleontologist Isaiah Nengo of De Anza College in Cupertino,
California, and his team started walking back to their jeep.
Kenyan fossil hunter John Ekusi raced ahead to smoke a
cigarette. Suddenly he began circling in place. When Nengo
caught up, he saw a dirt-clogged eye socket staring up at
him. “There was this skull just sticking out of the
ground,” Nengo recalls. “It was incredible because we had
been going up and down that path for weeks and never noticed
it”.
The team carefully extracted the fossil from the rocky ground
using small dental picks and brushes. Nengo knew immediately
it was a primate skull, but that he wouldn’t learn much
more until he and colleagues performed a more sophisticated
analysis.
At the Noble Gas Laboratory at Rutgers University in New
Brunswick, New Jersey, researchers measured argon
isotopes—which decay at a fixed, predictable rate—within
the fossil’s rock layer, revealing that it was about 13
million years old. Back then, the dry, rocky landscape of
today’s Turkana Basin was a lush rainforest.
Although the fossil looks a bit like a gibbon skull on first
blush, Nengo says, its dental pattern and teeth shape suggest
its closest relatives are other Miocene fossil primates from
the genus *Nyanzapithecus*, also found in Kenya. Yet its
molars are much larger than those of the known
nyanzapithecines, indicating a new species. The researchers
named it *N. alesi*, or Alesi for short, after the Turkana
word for “ancestor”.
Extremely sensitive x-ray imaging performed at the European
Synchrotron Radiation Facility in Grenoble, France, allowed
the team to count growth lines in the fossil’s unerupted
adult teeth like tree rings, telling them Alesi was about 485
days (or 1 year and 4 months) old when it died. The x-rays
also revealed the presence of bony ear tubes in the skull,
which act as a balance organ. Primatologists have long
debated whether the Nyanzapithecus genus belonged to the ape
or monkey line, but the presence of these tubes, combined
with the size and shape of the teeth, solidly mark Alesi --
and by extension the other nyanzapithecines -- as apes
[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v548/n7666/full/nature2
3
Post by Kurt (Sphincter) Schlichter
4 5
6.html?foxtrotcallback=true], the researchers report today in
'Nature'. What’s more, they claim, the ear tubes present
strong evidence that it’s an evolutionary cousin to the
ancestral line of apes from which humans and living apes
derive.
That could help answer a long-standing question in primate
evolution: Did the common ancestor to living apes and humans
evolve in Africa or Eurasia? Nengo says the new finding
supports an African origin. “Africa has been acting like a
petri dish for millions of years, conducting experiments in
evolution,” he says. “Humans and our close ape relatives
are just the latest evolutionary experiments to come out of
that petri dish.”
David Begun, an anthropologist at the University of Toronto
in Canada, isn’t convinced. He points to the fact that
fossil hominines—a group whose descendants include African
apes and humans—have been found in Europe dating to 12.5
million years ago, but they don’t conclusively show up in
the African fossil record until 7 million years ago. To him,
that suggests the common ancestor evolved in Europe before
heading back into Africa. The discovery of N. alesi does
nothing to change that. “*Nyanzapithecus* is an early
ape,” Begun says. “Whether it’s the closest thing we
know to the last common ancestor... is questionable.”
----------
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
. . .
The only sensible answer is that science is a lying because we
were created by a giant bearded white Christian Conservative
capitalist God who lives in the sky.. Send all your money to
Benny Hinn, John Hagee, Franklin Graham and Pat Robertson.
They have a special magic that gives them the power to talk
with the God.
Rick Johnson
2017-08-14 01:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracy12
The only sensible answer is that science is a lying because
we were created by a giant bearded white Christian
Conservative capitalist God who lives in the sky..
What a coincidence!

Santa Claus is also a giant bearded white Christian
Conservative capitalist [guy] who lives ["above us"].

Except, if you piss ol' Santa off, the worst thing that
might happen will be to get a lump of coal in your stocking.
OTOH god is more of a hot-head.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-08-14 12:58:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by Tracy12
The only sensible answer is that science is a lying because
we were created by a giant bearded white Christian
Conservative capitalist God who lives in the sky..
What a coincidence!
Santa Claus is also a giant bearded white Christian
Conservative capitalist [guy] who lives ["above us"].
Santa's not a "conservative capitalist". He's a compassionate conservative (a real one, not that phony Dubya type) with maximum empathy. (I never really stopped believing in Santa; I just changed my personal definition ot Santa to make him work as metaphor.)
Post by Rick Johnson
Except, if you piss ol' Santa off, the worst thing that
might happen will be to get a lump of coal in your stocking.
OTOH god is more of a hot-head.
Good thing it doesn't exist, can't exist.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Rick Johnson
2017-08-14 21:43:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Tracy12
The only sensible answer is that science is a lying
because we were created by a giant bearded white
Christian Conservative capitalist God who lives in the
sky..
What a coincidence! Santa Claus is also a giant bearded
white Christian Conservative capitalist [guy] who lives
["above us"].
Santa's not a "conservative capitalist". He's a
compassionate conservative
Perhaps i was wrong about his capitalism, but one must
wonder how he obtains all those raw materials when he
receives no salary. Hmm. And I often wonder if he's paying
those poor elves a living wage? And has anybody bothered to
investigate the working conditions up there in Santa's
workshop? Are the elves allowed the right of collective
bargaining?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
with maximum empathy.
Maximum empathy only if, in the eyes of Santa, you've been a
good little boy or girl. If my childhood memories have not
forsaken me, Santa was quite liberal with the coal!
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...