A well thought-out argument against anti-evolutionists

The fallacy of your argument lies in the fact that you believe that all species that exist today, existed in nearly the same form millions of years ago. I highly suggest you go back a few pages and look at the well-documented lineage of the horse - the changes are quite obvious and traceable.

The very fact that Piltdown and Nebraska were revealed to be frauds is a credit to the scientific process, which unlike your religion is able to examine itself and realize when it has made mistakes, and correct itself to incorporate new, more correct data.

That Neanderthal Man is actually an individual Homo Sapien Sapiens who suffered from arthritis and rickets (which are, by the way, not pathological conditions), is patently false. Go to your local museum once in a while.

 

That is precisely how I figured you would look at this.

Zebras and donkeys are two different species, correct? Each has their own set of attributes that makes them instantly recognizable as belonging to one species over the other. And yet, they can interbreed, because they have the same number of chromosomes and they are not so far removed from each other that the enzymes of the sperm are still able to break through the coating of the egg.

Likewise, each mutation of influenza has its own characteristics that immediately mark it. They are like different breeds of cat, except that since influenza, a virus, propagates at a much faster rate, new breeds are created much more readily.

 

Once again, you make several extraordinary claims without a reputable source to back you up.

 

jews did part water ..i was washing a car in a jewish condo sudenly the water was turn off . 5 minute later the police arrive. 10 minutes later they crucify me.

 

So you would like to see birds with jaws and teeth no problem.

A primitive bird has been found in Europe just south of the Dutch town of Maastricht. It's fossilised tooth indicates that this primitive bird still had a toothfilled set of jaws rather than a bill. The discovery was enough to point researchers in the direction of a primitive FISH EATING BIRDS. No trans-species but a bird with a jaw and teeth. Thanks for giving me the time to respond. It,s not easy when the odds are 10 to 1 .
http:/www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/features/science/bird021126.html

 

Oh, and did you really think National Geograpic would even consider doing a story which would prove the Bible. That's not what they are about. That's why they have egg on their face, for publishing a false story about evolution. And you consider them a reputable source.

 

Well, your link did not work for me, but I was able to find this article from August 2002; that was it, however.

http://dml.cmnh.org/2002Aug/msg00043.html

The very term "primitive" means that this is another transitional form in the ancestry of modern birds. It is one of the first absolute steps in their development from early reptiles. They have, however, only retrieved a few bones - hopefully more will be found so that more informed decisions can be made about this creature's place in the history of life on this planet.

By the way, this point has been made before, but you've ignored it - sparrows did not exist millions of years ago, but they do now. If they did not evolve from something, there should be sparrow fossils, even if fossils can form in 6,000 years and the earth is only 6,000 years old. But there aren't. So, explain that, please, if you can.

 

The New York Times has run false articles - it's a sign of the publications' integrity that they are willing and able to admit that they were wrong, and publish corrections.

Furthermore, National Geographic is perfectly willing to publish pro-Bible articles, provided that there is actual evidence behind the research:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0911_030911_SiloamTunnel.html

 

The great pathologist Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902) claimed that the Neandertal specimen he examined had rickets and arthritis, which may have caused some of the unique Neandertal features, but his opinion was overlooked. It took 44 years for the highly misleading nature of the reconstructions to be revealed, indicative of the shared bias of the evolutionary community.

Even after Neandertal reconstruction at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago was shown to be false and highly misleading, it took another 20 years for this renowned institution to correct its display.

If as you say that report was patently false, why did the Museum have to correct it's display?

And that's why I don't go to Museums. But I sure they really impress you.

 

Looks like it's time for me to prove you the fool yet again.

"In the 1800's the famous pathologist Rudolf Virchow was one who claimed that the first Neandertal fossil found was of a rickets sufferer. As Trinkaus and Shipman (1992) point out, Virchow, an expert on rickets, should have been the first to realize how ridiculous this diagnosis was. People with rickets are undernourished and calcium-poor, and their bones are so weak that even the weight of the body can cause them to bend. The bones of the first Neandertal, by contrast, were about 50% thicker than those of the average modern human, and clearly belonged to an extraordinarily athletic and muscular individual."

- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html

There is much more on that page that I suggest you read. But I don't expect you to, because I expect you to follow your established pattern of ignoring the meat and merit of what I have said, and instead revert to simply claiming that Darwin was wrong without any evidence at all.

 

By the way, you shouldn't plagiarize. Most of your last post came verbatim from http://www.thematrix.co.uk/texttopic.asp?ID=8 .

It's also worth noting that a meta-engine search using the string +"Field Museum" +Chicago +Neanderthal +correction turned up only this page in reference to the action you mention. That leads me to believe that the author of the page simply fabricated it to serve his or her own ends, and it is not indeed fact.

 

The Bird is a bird. No claim to it being a transitional has been made. Also I believe in change within species, cross breeding ect. This can easily be seen in other species as well, cross breeding does not constitute evolution. Many of the different types of birds we see today are a result of that. Evolution suggest that species became something totally different than what they are. The lack of trans-species in the fossil record should of sent red flags up years ago. No fossil record puts the Theory of Evolution on shaky ground at best, but die hards can only make excuses, for what would normally be the obvious conclusion.

 

haha see i posed a trap to catch him with the final block in this debate, to get him to find merely another piece of evidence for the transition of species himself.

you see for campbell, a transitional species.. it would just be a new subspecies instead of a transitionalspecies. that is what is in his mind.

see? you just pick the side of the transition its closest to and just say its a wierd type of that.

the whale with leg stumps was just a WIERD WHALE! a whale is a whale of course. the transitions of horse species were just WIERD HORSES!


this ties in greately with that theory that relates to campbell proposed earlier about when belief contradicts reality. facts are denied proper context.

and there we have it.

people we will get nowhere in this debate of course, we never did, but now that he has displayed his weakness publically, we can rest it at how much of a fool he is.

To continue would only fool his ego, because to him we are tlaking trash and the more people who talk trash and follwo evolution, the more campbell will feel proud to be a creationish through and through. and the harder it would be to convince him.

meh, we all know hes wasting his life's energies. but lets not waste ours by feeding him.

 

Nobody's saying that a grasshopper suddenly becomes a frog.

But a type of worm over many, many generations could become a snake or a gecko. Looking at each of their lineages, you could go from one form to the other and say "nothing has changed, it's still just a worm with adaptations." But when you step back and look at the big picture - is it? Yes and no. We're not that much different from worms ourselves.

So you believe in adaptation, that is, microevolution, but not speciation, that is, macroevolution. That's funny. That's like - and I forget where I first heard this - but that's like saying that I can walk down the block but not across the city. It's silly.

 

Campbel, have you ever stopped to think maybe the reason why reputable sources dont publish the kinds of stories you would like is because they are outrageous and often false?

 

that just sounds stupid just so you know, you shoud have used a better example, or should i say,a better corolations between wo types of animals, but i mean, keep it in the same, whatever, cant remember the order it goes in, but i eman reptile to reptile, or mollusk to mollusk

 

The objects they have brought up, and the writings in stone are facts. Your response clearly demonstrates your inability to deal with facts that can be tested for accuracy, and truth.

 

The latest evidence of this panic comes in a controversy that followed a highly specialized article published in an even more specialized scientific journal.

http://www.eyedesignbook.com/ch6/eyech6-append-d.html

 

If you think that sounds stupid, then you don't believe in evolution.

It's a simple example, but it's fine - going from mollusk to mollusk wouldn't be making any kind of point, since as far as campbell and his ilk are concerned, that's simply the same thing adapting to different conditions.

I really don't want to turn this into a petty fight, but if you're going to go around calling people stupid, you might want to bone up on your grammar so that you don't look stupid yourself.

 

This is hilarious.

First of all, I will listen to Pope Benedict XVI on the topic of evolution before I will listen to a high official in the Southern Baptist church on anything. Those people are INSANE. Snake-handlers and all that. Remnants of the KKK.

Secondly, I LOVE how you fundamentalists who take the Bible literally word-for-word (as it was not meant to do...it is rife with metaphor and symbolism) try to discredit evolution by calling it an object of veneration and worship, and saying that it is "more about cherished mythology than honest intellectual endeavor." Does no one see the irony?? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

And lastly, of course the scientific community was upset - Dr. Meyer is a poor scientist to start talking in terms of absolutes, regardless of his stance on any controversial topic. He's wrong in what he says, but no one needs to even consider the specifics of what he's talking about to see that he is quite clearly not someone to be listened to. By the way he goes about trying to prove his points, his flawed 'science' is obvious. Now, it's quite possible that Dr. Meyer has been poorly represented by Albert Mohler, the author of the article to which campbell34 has so kindly linked us.

The fact is that it's far too early to be talking in any kind of absolutes about _how_ evolution works. We know that it _does_ happen, and now we are trying to discover how. We have known since the dawn of humanity that gravity exists, but we still are not positive _how_ it works. Aristotle thought that objects of different mass fell at different rates, but hundreds of years later Galileo Galilei proved him wrong. Einstein proved Newton wrong in his theories of how gravity works. Just because Aristotle and Newton had misconceptions about the how gravity works doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist.

Just because you - and perhaps Darwin - and others - and probably myself - have misconceptions about how evolution works, does not mean that it does not happen. It does.