There are 151311 comments on the Asheville Citizen-Times
132,421 - 132,440 of 151,311 Comments
Rabbit On Crack wrote: Three old men named Dan, Wondering and Sub where talking one day about how bad their hands jerk and shookDan said my hands shake and jerk so bad that when I shaved this morning I cut my face several times.Wondering said mine are worse than that, my hands shake and jerk so bad that when I went to trim my flowers, I accidentally cut them all down.Sub said you guys have no clue. Mine hands shake and jerk so bad that when I was going pee this morning I came three times before I was done.I will be here all week,,, well til Monday then back to the bump and grind of work. I'll have what he is having.
KAB wrote: <quoted text>Your are corrrect that early branches which are not represented in the data sample probably are not abundant in the present population, at least not homogeneously so. In principle, there could still be pockets of population not sampled, and we know that genetically the human population is not homogeneously distributed. Yes but the early haplotypes would be in all populations and subpopulations - they would be the ONLY haplotypes, in fact, early on (in your scenario). Therefore the chances of them all disappearing with a sample size >20,000 are vanishingly small. i.e. statistically impossible.Remember that in the timeframe available to you, 4500 years, they should still be the majority of the population. If we make the simple distinction "early haptype vs recent haptype" and pretend its 50:50 (whereas its actually worse than that, for you, since early haptypes should still be the majority), then that would be like throwing 20,000 heads and no tails, in a row.The only way to account for the disappearance of these early haptypes is a far longer age for the ancestral tree. Say, ahem, 150,000 years, perhaps.Your hypothesis (at least, thankfully, you got around to offering one), is not going to work.
Subduction Zone wrote: <quoted text>Actually it has been observed. The tests have been replicated. You don't get to say what qualifies as observing. We can observe nonhuman to human evolution in the fossil record, No you can't. All fossils can show is that something once lived, died, and left an image of itself. Fossils do not show heritage. Subduction Zone wrote: <quoted text> By the way that is using the scientific method. No it isn't. All you have done is verify the existence of fossils. Not that they evolved from anything. All you have is a faith based interpretation with no observation. Subduction Zone wrote: <quoted text>Failed theory? Please, name one failure of the theory of evolution? Just one? It isn't observable. It isn't testable. No test has ever been done causing a non-human to evolve into a human. It fails to explain the What, when , how and where of the origin of the human genders. It fails to explain what biologically evolved that made this non-human, now human. Subduction Zone wrote: <quoted text> You know that you can't. I just did!! Subduction Zone wrote: <quoted text> You would think that a Christian would obey the 9th Commandment at least occasionally. What Christians do is none of your concern. It is between them and GOD only. Subduction Zone wrote: <quoted text>And more pure tripe from marky. Creatards have been spouting this nonsense since the birth of the theory of evolution. Again, show one failure of the theory of evolution. AGAIN, I just did!!!
Subduction Zone wrote: <quoted text>Your question is exceedingly poorly formed. Would you care to try to ask it again in English? Not to you. No time to dumb it down for you.
TurkanaBoy wrote: <quoted text>AKA the scientists - you know, the ones that ACTUALLY do the science - and draw my conclusions. You know, I'm sorry you're an idiot, but the thing I am truly sorry about is that you can't come to your own conclusions. You can't think for yourself. Experts were fooled by Piltdown Man for over 40 years, because of non-thinkers just like you. duh duh duh.....you say it, I believe it....duh duh duh.......I can't think for myself, so please tell me what to think...duh duh duh
wondering wrote: <quoted text>what you responded to has never been produced..i repeat; if you beg to differ it should be easy for you to show evidence of actual non-human to human evolution. you can't because that doesn't exist. only similarities have been observed.. You are exactly correct. THis group has existed for over 4 years now and your request still has never been touched. Why? Because you are correct.....it can't.
KAB wrote: <quoted text>At least one of the original 3 likely had to be "pure" mt-MRCA in order to produce the entire tree, depending on how common it is to back up the tree to create branches that otherwise wouldn't get generated. We certainly know that mutations occur in both directions. That's part of the challenge of producing an accurate tree. I did not pull you up on L3 vs L5 (which is ancestral to L3), because I am not going to split hairs over the point. I fully grant you the right to have the first three women be of any haplotype you choose, in the most advantageous way possible for your hypothesis. It makes no difference, as the disappearance of whatever you chose plus several branches since, down the track, leaving only the much altered current descendants intact, with multiple mutations fixed in the various sub-populations, and each fixing event taking many generations to occur even in the sub-populations, leaves no possibility that the ancestral tree is only 4500 years from n=3. WHATEVER 3 (or 4) you want to choose.A stable population could not deliver even a fraction of the diversity observed in 4500 years, nor account for the disappearance of the earlier ancestral branches.A rapidly growing population could generate diversity somewhat faster (though still not nearly fast enough), and even worse, would preserve older branches even more successfully at the same time.Neither I, nor any scientist, NEEDS the answer to come out in agreement with a Flood story, nor NEEDS it not to. It simply doesn't, that's all. It happens to come out at circa 150,000 years. Whatever allowances you want to make for migration, population growth, whatever, does not put a serious dent in that number, and certainly does not shrink it by a factor of 30x.Admitting that you do not have a viable hypothesis in support of what you "wish or need" to be true is the first step in learning the real truth. Judged:
marksman11 wrote: <quoted text>You know, I'm sorry you're an idiot, but the thing I am truly sorry about is that you can't come to your own conclusions. You can't think for yourself. Experts were fooled by Piltdown Man for over 40 years, because of non-thinkers just like you. duh duh duh.....you say it, I believe it....duh duh duh.......I can't think for myself, so please tell me what to think...duh duh duh Ahhh, Marksman, still on about Piltdown man. Yawn. Don't you ever get tired of lying for Jesus? Judged:
marksman11 wrote: <quoted text>No you can't. All fossils can show is that something once lived, died, and left an image of itself. Fossils do not show heritage That does not mean that they are not evidence of descent. You really are not too bright are you?. No it isn't. All you have done is verify the existence of fossils. Not that they evolved from anything. All you have is a faith based interpretation with no observation. Too bad that you do not understand the nature of evidence. Lucky for us the rest of the world is not as idiotic as you are. Just one? It isn't observable. It isn't testable. No test has ever been done causing a non-human to evolve into a human. It fails to explain the What, when , how and where of the origin of the human genders. It fails to explain what biologically evolved that made this non-human, now human.[/QLUOTE]And wrong on all counts. Let's see. We can and have observed evolution in the field, in the lab, in the fossil record, in our DNA, in the various independent nested hierarchies just for a start. Wow! That was amazingly wrong even for you.[QUOTE]I just did!! No, you failed miserably. Try again. What Christians do is none of your concern. It is between them and GOD only. You are either a complete idiot, beyond belief or you are a terrible liar. You can't say that your lying is between you and God. Your hypocrisy is open to all.. AGAIN, I just did!!! No moron, you failed terribly again. And you either lied or showed that you are an amazing dunce. Seriously it is much more likely that you are lying than being an monumental idiot. It is doubtful that anyone could breathe and be as stupid as you have portrayed yourself to be. You have been corrected on all of these points time after time. Does your God really think that it is okay to lie for Jesus? How weak do you think Jesus is that you have to lie for him all of the time? Seriously you are insulting all of Christianity with your actions.
marksman11 wrote: <quoted text>Not to you. No time to dumb it down for you. In other words not even you know what the hell you were trying to say.What a Maroon!
wondering wrote: <quoted text>For the 23rd time!You are a NASTY deceiver.Explain how you manage to say that you know more about science than we do, while you do not know one speck of:1) embryology2) physiology3) genetics4) biochemistry5) fossil recordANSWER THE QUESTION!!!! Behold how it works when you have no answers.I shall summarize the discussion here:1) Wondering: "evolution is only about similarities"2) I answered: "no,'similarities' isn't even an important line of evidence, the evidence comes from embryology, fossil record, genetics, biochemistry, fossil record and physiology"3) I replied: "can you summarize the mentioned aspects, because if you criticize evolution, you SHOULD be able to do that"4) Wondering: "no, evolution mentions only 'similarities'"And after some posts, it ends up in the one cited above.It can't get any worse.We can't even decently explain here to an complete ignorant layman what's in the scientific textbooks. I am staring here at the table of contents of Jerry Coyne's book "Evolution is true":Chapter 2: "Written in the rocks" - about the fossil recordChapter 3. "Remnants: Vestiges, Embryos and Bad Design" - about embryology and physiological aspectsChapter 5. "The engine of evolution" - about the genetics and biochemistry of evolutionChapter 8: "What about us" - where he applies the lines of evidence of chapters 2, 3, 5 and 8 to human descent.Wondering: "evolution only is only about similarities".Well, let's take another book: Richard Dawkins' "The greatest show on earth - the evidence for evolution":Chapter 6: "Missing link? What do you mean,'missing'?" - about the fossil recordChapter 7 "Missing persons? Missing no longer" - about human descentChapter 8: "You did it yourself in nine months" - about embryology, biochemistry and geneticsChapter 10: "The tree of cousins" - about physiology and biochemistry againChapter 11: "History written all over us" - about physiology and embryology againWondering: " "evolution only is only about similarities".He has never read a single book on biology and YET he manages to tattle that in evolution there is no evidence for common descent apart from 'similarities'.It is annoying we have to produce the kind of posts like this one to, like addressing little misbehaving children, explain what's been said to tattlers and ignorant.THOSE people are trying to get a grip on out educational system.Little, tiny note: I teach sociobiology on an university where I spend at least 3 lessons on evolution theory including its aspects pertaining embryology, fossil record, genetics, biochemistry, fossil record and physiology.What are YOUR qualifications, Wondering?
marksman11 wrote: All fossils can show is that something once lived, died, and left an image of itself. Fossils do not show heritage. This point has been stated by you, understood, and acknowledged for years. Yet it seems beyond you to understand or acknowledge the following equally valid points:ONE fossil can only show that something once lived and died. But a succession of similar fossils following a trend through the strata shows that the things that lived and died gradually differed over many thousands and millions of years. This is the pattern that evolution predicted and can explain, but biblical creationism neither predicted nor explains. And its the pattern we see in the fossil record, not just for hominids but for many different organisms.So, you can pop up every few months and repeat the same lines over and over, without having the ability to discuss, acknowledge, or even provide a reasonable refutation of these points, and you might impress Sunday School children, but not for long. Judged:
marksman11 wrote: <quoted text>No you can't. All fossils can show is that something once lived, died, and left an image of itself. Fossils do not show heritage.<quoted text> No it isn't. All you have done is verify the existence of fossils. Not that they evolved from anything. All you have is a faith based interpretation with no observation.<quoted text>Just one? It isn't observable. It isn't testable. No test has ever been done causing a non-human to evolve into a human. It fails to explain the What, when , how and where of the origin of the human genders. It fails to explain what biologically evolved that made this non-human, now human.<quoted text> I just did!!<quoted text> What Christians do is none of your concern. It is between them and GOD only.AGAIN, I just did!!! Fossils do far more than that. Your point rests on an over-simplified and very limited definition and view of fossils. You intentionally leave out all the parts that don't support your position. What do they call that? It has a name. Oh yes, a lie. You have never been able to actually address the issue of fossils beyond this lie. To do so would shatter the lie (it is already revealed, no sense worrying about that). You ignore the obvious of why there are fossils in the first place. Why are many of the fossils of animals, and plants, that don't exist anywhere on earth today? Why do different fossil groups exist in specific layers of the geological column? How do you explain that this regularity can be used as an index to define layers of different ages? Why do you see convergence of lineages shown by fossils as you go down the geologic column (back through time) and divergence as you move forward? Why do you see in the fossil record what the theory of evolution predicts you would see?Then you demand to be shown that which you don't have a definition for and say because you aren't shown it that the theory falls apart. This is another lie on many levels. It is a lie because you been shown much evidence for the evolution of our species of ape. It is a lie because you don't understand or ignore the scope of science (this may just be ignorance, but since you deny that possibility, it conforms to a lie). The scientific method is the cornerstone of scientific discovery, but it science is not limited to that alone. Much of science is observational. Classical taxonomists in entomology long differentiated species and established relationships for them by careful observation of various morphological traits. Much of this classical taxonomy has held up under later application of statistical techniques and more recently by the application of powerful molecular analysis.So what is your definition of human? You have yacked on for years, but you never reveal that secret. Is a human an erect bipedal primate, with manipulating forelimbs, opposable thumbs and a large brain. Because the evolution of those features is shown in the fossil record. Is it an organism that can use tools and alter its environment through that use? We would have to include honeybees, beavers, elephants and host of other unrelated species as human by that definition. The fossil record as well as a vast amount of other biological evidence show these to be different. I could go on, but the point is that you are right, the fossil record doesn't show the particular change that makes us uniquely what we are, at least as we have so far found. But it doesn't have to. It shows the changes that lead to us with other aspects (traits). You are just denying this with your undefined and intentionally limited example. You could give a definition of human, but it wouldn't be useful in showing you are right, partly because you unnecessarily limit what it means to be human to one or only a few things for the scope of your demand. You intentionally exclude a morphological definition based on skeletal characters that are just as telling as traits that don't leave fossils.
marksman11 wrote: <quoted text>No you can't. All fossils can show is that something once lived, died, and left an image of itself. Fossils do not show heritage.<quoted text> No it isn't. All you have done is verify the existence of fossils. Not that they evolved from anything. All you have is a faith based interpretation with no observation.<quoted text>Just one? It isn't observable. It isn't testable. No test has ever been done causing a non-human to evolve into a human. It fails to explain the What, when , how and where of the origin of the human genders. It fails to explain what biologically evolved that made this non-human, now human.<quoted text> I just did!!<quoted text> What Christians do is none of your concern. It is between them and GOD only.<quoted text>AGAIN, I just did!!! It seems what fundamentalist Christians like you do is also involved in the teaching of science in school, and a host of other activities that you demand conform to your views and only your views. Would that you did keep yourselves concerned with what is between you and God. The rest of the world would be much better off.
marksman11 wrote: <quoted text>No you can't. All fossils can show is that something once lived, died, and left an image of itself. Fossils do not show heritage.<quoted text> No it isn't. All you have done is verify the existence of fossils. Not that they evolved from anything. All you have is a faith based interpretation with no observation.<quoted text>Just one? It isn't observable. It isn't testable. No test has ever been done causing a non-human to evolve into a human. It fails to explain the What, when , how and where of the origin of the human genders. It fails to explain what biologically evolved that made this non-human, now human.<quoted text> I just did!!<quoted text> What Christians do is none of your concern. It is between them and GOD only.<quoted text>AGAIN, I just did!!! Your posts always include a number of terms with apparent limited scope and unsupported claims. You have been told this repeatedly. I would hate to see what horrible, invasive and immoral procedure you consider to be a pregnancy test. Thankfully, a woman can just dip a chemically treated wand into a small quantity of her urine to determine if she is pregnant. Simple, easy and low impact. This test is very accurate and doesn't depend on ripping her open to yank out a developing embryo so that everyone can see it. They must do things different in your church.You refer to something being invalid because it is not testable, but your sweeping claim is incorrect. The data of fossil humans and our ancestors has been observed, collected, analyzed and subjected to statistical testing. The evidence for human evolution comes from the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetics, molecular biology, geology and paleontology to name a few. At the molecular level you can see evolution in humans for the past 200,000 years right in the existing population. Yes, we can't reproduce it in the lab yet, but that is true of a lot more of accepted science than you mention or likely are aware of. You seem to think creating a human in the lab is the only defining criteria to show that evolution has taken place. It isn't and hopefully will never happen outside of fiction writing. You should consider a career in fiction, because you don't have the cred for science.Enjoy your Sunday school presentation today. I am sure the kids will be mystified by your grasp of things. Can't have them thinking for themselves.
KAB wrote: <quoted text>I'm not here for proper debate. True. KAB wrote: <quoted text> I'm here to provide and join in analysis of info. This is a lie. It has been disproven far too many times to count. I am not sure if this is an outright lie or a delusion, but it is not objectively true, based on the analysis of the data contained in your posts. In fact you are suffering from a type of minor psychotic disorder. There is nothing about your life that would not, eventually, be better if you got help. KAB wrote: <quoted text>For how long after de-glaciation could tremors be attributed to rebound? Bwhahahahahahaha. You are like a child asking where babies come from. Judged:
marksman11 wrote: <quoted text>No you can't. All fossils can show is that something once lived, died, and left an image of itself. NOT observed in the geological record.Your ignorance is astonishing.You don't even know the very basic 101 of geology.Already known for 200-250 years.I have some questions for you.Geology class 101, the very elementary basics:1) why do we find in the deepest layers only unicellular life?2) why are layers deeper in the geological column older than the ones on top, do you think?3) why are exceptions to 2) so rare?4) why do we see species appear and disappear again, do you think?5) why is life getting ever more complex when ascending the geological column, do you think?As material you may refer to the next source, a CREATIONIST website: http://www.oldearth.org/stratigraphy.htm . It comes in 5 pages and is a factual summary what we observe in the Grand Canyon geology."Blessed" are the ones who will attend your meeting.For blessed are the simple of mind.
TurkanaBoy wrote: <quoted text>NOT observed in the geological record.Your ignorance is astonishing.You don't even know the very basic 101 of geology.Already known for 200-250 years.I have some questions for you.Geology class 101, the very elementary basics:1) why do we find in the deepest layers only unicellular life?2) why are layers deeper in the geological column older than the ones on top, do you think?3) why are exceptions to 2) so rare?4) why do we see species appear and disappear again, do you think?5) why is life getting ever more complex when ascending the geological column, do you think?As material you may refer to the next source, a CREATIONIST website: http://www.oldearth.org/stratigraphy.htm . It comes in 5 pages and is a factual summary what we observe in the Grand Canyon geology."Blessed" are the ones who will attend your meeting.For blessed are the simple of mind. or those that simply appear to have no mind.
TurkanaBoy wrote: <quoted text>Behold how it works when you have no answers.I shall summarize the discussion here:1) Wondering: "evolution is only about similarities"2) I answered: "no,'similarities' isn't even an important line of evidence, the evidence comes from embryology, fossil record, genetics, biochemistry, fossil record and physiology"3) I replied: "can you summarize the mentioned aspects, because if you criticize evolution, you SHOULD be able to do that"4) Wondering: "no, evolution mentions only 'similarities'"And after some posts, it ends up in the one cited above.It can't get any worse.We can't even decently explain here to an complete ignorant layman what's in the scientific textbooks. I am staring here at the table of contents of Jerry Coyne's book "Evolution is true":Chapter 2: "Written in the rocks" - about the fossil recordChapter 3. "Remnants: Vestiges, Embryos and Bad Design" - about embryology and physiological aspectsChapter 5. "The engine of evolution" - about the genetics and biochemistry of evolutionChapter 8: "What about us" - where he applies the lines of evidence of chapters 2, 3, 5 and 8 to human descent.Wondering: "evolution only is only about similarities".Well, let's take another book: Richard Dawkins' "The greatest show on earth - the evidence for evolution":Chapter 6: "Missing link? What do you mean,'missing'?" - about the fossil recordChapter 7 "Missing persons? Missing no longer" - about human descentChapter 8: "You did it yourself in nine months" - about embryology, biochemistry and geneticsChapter 10: "The tree of cousins" - about physiology and biochemistry againChapter 11: "History written all over us" - about physiology and embryology againWondering: " "evolution only is only about similarities".He has never read a single book on biology and YET he manages to tattle that in evolution there is no evidence for common descent apart from 'similarities'.It is annoying we have to produce the kind of posts like this one to, like addressing little misbehaving children, explain what's been said to tattlers and ignorant.THOSE people are trying to get a grip on out educational system.Little, tiny note: I teach sociobiology on an university where I spend at least 3 lessons on evolution theory including its aspects pertaining embryology, fossil record, genetics, biochemistry, fossil record and physiology.What are YOUR qualifications, Wondering? only similarities have been observed. now if you beg to differ it should be easy for you to show evidence of actual non-human to human evolution.this was posted before your questions. so again read it and if you beg to differ show it. now can you produce evidence of actual non-human to human evolution that has been observed? not parts, not this or that. actual observed non-human to human evolution, observed step by step, every step of the way.or you can keep using your ad hominem argument:and attacking me. you can't. Judged:
KAB wrote: I will provide the desert flood references if you acknowledge that present lack of similar data from the remaining deserts, craters, and other landmasses doesn't mean the global flood never happened. Sedimentary evidence from the Barringer and Grenada craters confirms a 4500 year global flood could not have taken place. So why would I acknowledge that such a flood could have happened?Thank you again for not providing the global flood references you claim you have. Reply »
Supreme Court Hillary Clinton Kentucky Derby Pope Francis Mexico China Egypt Wildfires Chris Brown Health Care Evolution Debate News
30,040 • Total comments across all topics: 272,231,947
There are 151311 comments on the Asheville Citizen-Times
132,421 - 132,440 of 151,311 Comments
Rabbit On Crack wrote: Three old men named Dan, Wondering and Sub where talking one day about how bad their hands jerk and shookDan said my hands shake and jerk so bad that when I shaved this morning I cut my face several times.Wondering said mine are worse than that, my hands shake and jerk so bad that when I went to trim my flowers, I accidentally cut them all down.Sub said you guys have no clue. Mine hands shake and jerk so bad that when I was going pee this morning I came three times before I was done.I will be here all week,,, well til Monday then back to the bump and grind of work. I'll have what he is having.
KAB wrote: <quoted text>Your are corrrect that early branches which are not represented in the data sample probably are not abundant in the present population, at least not homogeneously so. In principle, there could still be pockets of population not sampled, and we know that genetically the human population is not homogeneously distributed. Yes but the early haplotypes would be in all populations and subpopulations - they would be the ONLY haplotypes, in fact, early on (in your scenario). Therefore the chances of them all disappearing with a sample size >20,000 are vanishingly small. i.e. statistically impossible.Remember that in the timeframe available to you, 4500 years, they should still be the majority of the population. If we make the simple distinction "early haptype vs recent haptype" and pretend its 50:50 (whereas its actually worse than that, for you, since early haptypes should still be the majority), then that would be like throwing 20,000 heads and no tails, in a row.The only way to account for the disappearance of these early haptypes is a far longer age for the ancestral tree. Say, ahem, 150,000 years, perhaps.Your hypothesis (at least, thankfully, you got around to offering one), is not going to work.
Subduction Zone wrote: <quoted text>Actually it has been observed. The tests have been replicated. You don't get to say what qualifies as observing. We can observe nonhuman to human evolution in the fossil record, No you can't. All fossils can show is that something once lived, died, and left an image of itself. Fossils do not show heritage. Subduction Zone wrote: <quoted text> By the way that is using the scientific method. No it isn't. All you have done is verify the existence of fossils. Not that they evolved from anything. All you have is a faith based interpretation with no observation. Subduction Zone wrote: <quoted text>Failed theory? Please, name one failure of the theory of evolution? Just one? It isn't observable. It isn't testable. No test has ever been done causing a non-human to evolve into a human. It fails to explain the What, when , how and where of the origin of the human genders. It fails to explain what biologically evolved that made this non-human, now human. Subduction Zone wrote: <quoted text> You know that you can't. I just did!! Subduction Zone wrote: <quoted text> You would think that a Christian would obey the 9th Commandment at least occasionally. What Christians do is none of your concern. It is between them and GOD only. Subduction Zone wrote: <quoted text>And more pure tripe from marky. Creatards have been spouting this nonsense since the birth of the theory of evolution. Again, show one failure of the theory of evolution. AGAIN, I just did!!!
Subduction Zone wrote: <quoted text>Your question is exceedingly poorly formed. Would you care to try to ask it again in English? Not to you. No time to dumb it down for you.
TurkanaBoy wrote: <quoted text>AKA the scientists - you know, the ones that ACTUALLY do the science - and draw my conclusions. You know, I'm sorry you're an idiot, but the thing I am truly sorry about is that you can't come to your own conclusions. You can't think for yourself. Experts were fooled by Piltdown Man for over 40 years, because of non-thinkers just like you. duh duh duh.....you say it, I believe it....duh duh duh.......I can't think for myself, so please tell me what to think...duh duh duh
wondering wrote: <quoted text>what you responded to has never been produced..i repeat; if you beg to differ it should be easy for you to show evidence of actual non-human to human evolution. you can't because that doesn't exist. only similarities have been observed.. You are exactly correct. THis group has existed for over 4 years now and your request still has never been touched. Why? Because you are correct.....it can't.
KAB wrote: <quoted text>At least one of the original 3 likely had to be "pure" mt-MRCA in order to produce the entire tree, depending on how common it is to back up the tree to create branches that otherwise wouldn't get generated. We certainly know that mutations occur in both directions. That's part of the challenge of producing an accurate tree. I did not pull you up on L3 vs L5 (which is ancestral to L3), because I am not going to split hairs over the point. I fully grant you the right to have the first three women be of any haplotype you choose, in the most advantageous way possible for your hypothesis. It makes no difference, as the disappearance of whatever you chose plus several branches since, down the track, leaving only the much altered current descendants intact, with multiple mutations fixed in the various sub-populations, and each fixing event taking many generations to occur even in the sub-populations, leaves no possibility that the ancestral tree is only 4500 years from n=3. WHATEVER 3 (or 4) you want to choose.A stable population could not deliver even a fraction of the diversity observed in 4500 years, nor account for the disappearance of the earlier ancestral branches.A rapidly growing population could generate diversity somewhat faster (though still not nearly fast enough), and even worse, would preserve older branches even more successfully at the same time.Neither I, nor any scientist, NEEDS the answer to come out in agreement with a Flood story, nor NEEDS it not to. It simply doesn't, that's all. It happens to come out at circa 150,000 years. Whatever allowances you want to make for migration, population growth, whatever, does not put a serious dent in that number, and certainly does not shrink it by a factor of 30x.Admitting that you do not have a viable hypothesis in support of what you "wish or need" to be true is the first step in learning the real truth. Judged:
marksman11 wrote: <quoted text>You know, I'm sorry you're an idiot, but the thing I am truly sorry about is that you can't come to your own conclusions. You can't think for yourself. Experts were fooled by Piltdown Man for over 40 years, because of non-thinkers just like you. duh duh duh.....you say it, I believe it....duh duh duh.......I can't think for myself, so please tell me what to think...duh duh duh Ahhh, Marksman, still on about Piltdown man. Yawn. Don't you ever get tired of lying for Jesus? Judged:
marksman11 wrote: <quoted text>No you can't. All fossils can show is that something once lived, died, and left an image of itself. Fossils do not show heritage That does not mean that they are not evidence of descent. You really are not too bright are you?. No it isn't. All you have done is verify the existence of fossils. Not that they evolved from anything. All you have is a faith based interpretation with no observation. Too bad that you do not understand the nature of evidence. Lucky for us the rest of the world is not as idiotic as you are. Just one? It isn't observable. It isn't testable. No test has ever been done causing a non-human to evolve into a human. It fails to explain the What, when , how and where of the origin of the human genders. It fails to explain what biologically evolved that made this non-human, now human.[/QLUOTE]And wrong on all counts. Let's see. We can and have observed evolution in the field, in the lab, in the fossil record, in our DNA, in the various independent nested hierarchies just for a start. Wow! That was amazingly wrong even for you.[QUOTE]I just did!! No, you failed miserably. Try again. What Christians do is none of your concern. It is between them and GOD only. You are either a complete idiot, beyond belief or you are a terrible liar. You can't say that your lying is between you and God. Your hypocrisy is open to all.. AGAIN, I just did!!! No moron, you failed terribly again. And you either lied or showed that you are an amazing dunce. Seriously it is much more likely that you are lying than being an monumental idiot. It is doubtful that anyone could breathe and be as stupid as you have portrayed yourself to be. You have been corrected on all of these points time after time. Does your God really think that it is okay to lie for Jesus? How weak do you think Jesus is that you have to lie for him all of the time? Seriously you are insulting all of Christianity with your actions.
marksman11 wrote: <quoted text>Not to you. No time to dumb it down for you. In other words not even you know what the hell you were trying to say.What a Maroon!
wondering wrote: <quoted text>For the 23rd time!You are a NASTY deceiver.Explain how you manage to say that you know more about science than we do, while you do not know one speck of:1) embryology2) physiology3) genetics4) biochemistry5) fossil recordANSWER THE QUESTION!!!! Behold how it works when you have no answers.I shall summarize the discussion here:1) Wondering: "evolution is only about similarities"2) I answered: "no,'similarities' isn't even an important line of evidence, the evidence comes from embryology, fossil record, genetics, biochemistry, fossil record and physiology"3) I replied: "can you summarize the mentioned aspects, because if you criticize evolution, you SHOULD be able to do that"4) Wondering: "no, evolution mentions only 'similarities'"And after some posts, it ends up in the one cited above.It can't get any worse.We can't even decently explain here to an complete ignorant layman what's in the scientific textbooks. I am staring here at the table of contents of Jerry Coyne's book "Evolution is true":Chapter 2: "Written in the rocks" - about the fossil recordChapter 3. "Remnants: Vestiges, Embryos and Bad Design" - about embryology and physiological aspectsChapter 5. "The engine of evolution" - about the genetics and biochemistry of evolutionChapter 8: "What about us" - where he applies the lines of evidence of chapters 2, 3, 5 and 8 to human descent.Wondering: "evolution only is only about similarities".Well, let's take another book: Richard Dawkins' "The greatest show on earth - the evidence for evolution":Chapter 6: "Missing link? What do you mean,'missing'?" - about the fossil recordChapter 7 "Missing persons? Missing no longer" - about human descentChapter 8: "You did it yourself in nine months" - about embryology, biochemistry and geneticsChapter 10: "The tree of cousins" - about physiology and biochemistry againChapter 11: "History written all over us" - about physiology and embryology againWondering: " "evolution only is only about similarities".He has never read a single book on biology and YET he manages to tattle that in evolution there is no evidence for common descent apart from 'similarities'.It is annoying we have to produce the kind of posts like this one to, like addressing little misbehaving children, explain what's been said to tattlers and ignorant.THOSE people are trying to get a grip on out educational system.Little, tiny note: I teach sociobiology on an university where I spend at least 3 lessons on evolution theory including its aspects pertaining embryology, fossil record, genetics, biochemistry, fossil record and physiology.What are YOUR qualifications, Wondering?
marksman11 wrote: All fossils can show is that something once lived, died, and left an image of itself. Fossils do not show heritage. This point has been stated by you, understood, and acknowledged for years. Yet it seems beyond you to understand or acknowledge the following equally valid points:ONE fossil can only show that something once lived and died. But a succession of similar fossils following a trend through the strata shows that the things that lived and died gradually differed over many thousands and millions of years. This is the pattern that evolution predicted and can explain, but biblical creationism neither predicted nor explains. And its the pattern we see in the fossil record, not just for hominids but for many different organisms.So, you can pop up every few months and repeat the same lines over and over, without having the ability to discuss, acknowledge, or even provide a reasonable refutation of these points, and you might impress Sunday School children, but not for long. Judged:
marksman11 wrote: <quoted text>No you can't. All fossils can show is that something once lived, died, and left an image of itself. Fossils do not show heritage.<quoted text> No it isn't. All you have done is verify the existence of fossils. Not that they evolved from anything. All you have is a faith based interpretation with no observation.<quoted text>Just one? It isn't observable. It isn't testable. No test has ever been done causing a non-human to 
evolve into a human. It fails to explain the What, when , how and where of the origin of the human genders. It fails to explain what biologically evolved that made this non-human, now human.<quoted text> I just did!!<quoted text> What Christians do is none of your concern. It is between them and GOD only.AGAIN, I just did!!! Fossils do far more than that. Your point rests on an over-simplified and very limited definition and view of fossils. You intentionally leave out all the parts that don't support your position. What do they call that? It has a name. Oh yes, a lie. You have never been able to actually address the issue of fossils beyond this lie. To do so would shatter the lie (it is already revealed, no sense worrying about that). You ignore the obvious of why there are fossils in the first place. Why are many of the fossils of animals, and plants, that don't exist anywhere on earth today? Why do different fossil groups exist in specific layers of the geological column? How do you explain that this regularity can be used as an index to define layers of different ages? Why do you see convergence of lineages shown by fossils as you go down the geologic column (back through time) and divergence as you move forward? Why do you see in the fossil record what the theory of evolution predicts you would see?Then you demand to be shown that which you don't have a definition for and say because you aren't shown it that the theory falls apart. This is another lie on many levels. It is a lie because you been shown much evidence for the evolution of our species of ape. It is a lie because you don't understand or ignore the scope of science (this may just be ignorance, but since you deny that possibility, it conforms to a lie). The scientific method is the cornerstone of scientific discovery, but it science is not limited to that alone. Much of science is observational. Classical taxonomists in entomology long differentiated species and established relationships for them by careful observation of various morphological traits. Much of this classical taxonomy has held up under later application of statistical techniques and more recently by the application of powerful molecular analysis.So what is your definition of human? You have yacked on for years, but you never reveal that secret. Is a human an erect bipedal primate, with manipulating forelimbs, opposable thumbs and a large brain. Because the evolution of those features is shown in the fossil record. Is it an organism that can use tools and alter its environment through that use? We would have to include honeybees, beavers, elephants and host of other unrelated species as human by that definition. The fossil record as well as a vast amount of other biological evidence show these to be different. I could go on, but the point is that you are right, the fossil record doesn't show the particular change that makes us uniquely what we are, at least as we have so far found. But it doesn't have to. It shows the changes that lead to us with other aspects (traits). You are just denying this with your undefined and intentionally limited example. You could give a definition of human, but it wouldn't be useful in showing you are right, partly because you unnecessarily limit what it means to be human to one or only a few things for the scope of your demand. You intentionally exclude a morphological definition based on skeletal characters that are just as telling as traits that don't leave fossils.
marksman11 wrote: <quoted text>No you can't. All fossils can show is that something once lived, died, and left an image of itself. Fossils do not show heritage.<quoted text> No it isn't. All you have done is verify the existence of fossils. Not that they evolved from anything. All you have is a faith based interpretation with no observation.<quoted text>Just one? It isn't observable. It isn't testable. No test has ever been done causing a non-human to evolve into a human. It fails to explain the What, when , how and where of the origin of the human genders. It fails to explain what biologically evolved that made this non-human, now human.<quoted text> I just did!!<quoted text> What Christians do is none of your concern. It is between them and GOD only.<quoted text>AGAIN, I just did!!! It seems what fundamentalist Christians like you do is also involved in the teaching of science in school, and a host of other activities that you demand conform to your views and only your views. Would that you did keep yourselves concerned with what is between you and God. The rest of the world would be much better off.
marksman11 wrote: <quoted text>No you can't. All fossils can show is that something once lived, died, and left an image of itself. Fossils do not show heritage.<quoted text> No it isn't. All you have done is verify the existence of fossils. Not that they evolved from anything. All you have is a faith based interpretation with no observation.<quoted text>Just one? It isn't observable. It isn't testable. No test has ever been done causing a non-human to evolve into a human. It fails to explain the What, when , how and where of the origin of the human genders. It fails to explain what biologically evolved that made this non-human, now human.<quoted text> I just did!!<quoted text> What Christians do is none of your concern. It is between them and GOD only.<quoted text>AGAIN, I just did!!! Your posts always include a number of terms with apparent limited scope and unsupported claims. You have been told this repeatedly. I would hate to see what horrible, invasive and immoral procedure you consider to be a pregnancy test. Thankfully, a woman can just dip a chemically treated wand into a small quantity of her urine to determine if she is pregnant. Simple, easy and low impact. This test is very accurate and doesn't depend on ripping her open to yank out a developing embryo so that everyone can see it. They must do things different in your church.You refer to something being invalid because it is not testable, but your sweeping claim is incorrect. The data of fossil humans and our ancestors has been observed, collected, analyzed and subjected to statistical testing. The evidence for human evolution comes from the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetics, molecular biology, geology and paleontology to name a few. At the molecular level you can see evolution in humans for the past 200,000 years right in the existing population. Yes, we can't reproduce it in the lab yet, but that is true of a lot more of accepted science than you mention or likely are aware of. You seem to think creating a human in the lab is the only defining criteria to show that evolution has taken place. It isn't and hopefully will never happen outside of fiction writing. You should consider a career in fiction, because you don't have the cred for science.Enjoy your Sunday school presentation today. I am sure the kids will be mystified by your grasp of things. Can't have them thinking for themselves.
KAB wrote: <quoted text>I'm not here for proper debate. True. KAB wrote: <quoted text> I'm here to provide and join in analysis of info. This is a lie. It has been disproven far too many times to count. I am not sure if this is an outright lie or a delusion, but it is not objectively true, based on the analysis of the data contained in your posts. In fact you are suffering from a type of minor psychotic disorder. There is nothing about your life that would not, eventually, be better if you got help. KAB wrote: <quoted text>For how long after de-glaciation could tremors be attributed to rebound? Bwhahahahahahaha. You are like a child asking where babies come from. Judged:
marksman11 wrote: <quoted text>No you can't. All fossils can show is that something once lived, died, and left an image of itself. NOT observed in the geological record.Your ignorance is astonishing.You don't even know the very basic 101 of geology.Already known for 200-250 years.I have some questions for you.Geology class 101, the very elementary basics:1) why do we find in the deepest layers only unicellular life?2) why are layers deeper in the geological column older than the ones on top, do you think?3) why are exceptions to 2) so rare?4) why do we see species appear and disappear again, do you think?5) why is life getting ever more complex when ascending the geological column, do you think?As material you may refer to the next source, a CREATIONIST website: http://www.oldearth.org/stratigraphy.htm . It comes in 5 pages and is a factual summary what we observe in the Grand Canyon geology."Blessed" are the ones who will attend your meeting.For blessed are the simple of mind.
TurkanaBoy wrote: <quoted text>NOT observed in the geological record.Your ignorance is astonishing.You don't even know the very basic 101 of geology.Already known for 200-250 years.I have some questions for you.Geology class 101, the very elementary basics:1) why do we find in the deepest layers only unicellular life?2) why are layers deeper in the geological column older than the ones on top, do you think?3) why are exceptions to 2) so rare?4) why do we see species appear and disappear again, do you think?5) why is life getting ever more complex when ascending the geological column, do you think?As material you may refer to the next source, a CREATIONIST website: http://www.oldearth.org/stratigraphy.htm . It comes in 5 pages and is a factual summary what we observe in the Grand Canyon geology."Blessed" are the ones who will attend your meeting.For blessed are the simple of mind. or those that simply appear to have no mind.
TurkanaBoy wrote: <quoted text>Behold how it works when you have no answers.I shall summarize the discussion here:1) Wondering: "evolution is only about similarities"2) I answered: "no,'similarities' isn't even an important line of evidence, the evidence comes from embryology, fossil record, genetics, biochemistry, fossil record and physiology"3) I replied: "can you summarize the mentioned aspects, because if you criticize evolution, you SHOULD be able to do that"4) Wondering: "no, evolution mentions only 'similarities'"And after some posts, it ends up in the one cited above.It can't get any worse.We can't even decently explain here to an complete ignorant layman what's in the scientific textbooks. I am staring here at the table of contents of Jerry Coyne's book "Evolution is true":Chapter 2: "Written in the rocks" - about the fossil recordChapter 3. "Remnants: Vestiges, Embryos and Bad Design" - about embryology and physiological aspectsChapter 5. "The engine of evolution" - about the genetics and biochemistry of evolutionChapter 8: "What about us" - where he applies the lines of evidence of chapters 2, 3, 5 and 8 to human descent.Wondering: "evolution only is only about similarities".Well, let's take another book: Richard Dawkins' "The greatest show on earth - the evidence for evolution":Chapter 6: "Missing link? What do you mean,'missing'?" - about the fossil recordChapter 7 "Missing persons? Missing no longer" - about human descentChapter 8: "You did it yourself in nine months" - about embryology, biochemistry and geneticsChapter 10: "The tree of cousins" - about physiology and biochemistry againChapter 11: "History written all over us" - about physiology and embryology againWondering: " "evolution only is only about similarities".He has never read a single book on biology and YET he manages to tattle that in evolution there is no evidence for common descent apart from 'similarities'.It is annoying we have to produce the kind of posts like this one to, like addressing little misbehaving children, explain what's been said to tattlers and ignorant.THOSE people are trying to get a grip on out educational system.Little, tiny note: I teach sociobiology on an university where I spend at least 3 lessons on evolution theory including its aspects pertaining embryology, fossil record, genetics, biochemistry, fossil record and physiology.What are YOUR qualifications, Wondering? only similarities have been observed. now if you beg to differ it should be easy for you to show evidence of actual non-human to human evolution.this was posted before your questions. so again read it and if you beg to differ show it. now can you produce evidence of actual non-human to human evolution that has been observed? not parts, not this or that. actual observed non-human to human evolution, observed step by step, every step of the way.or you can keep using your ad hominem argument:and attacking me. you can't. Judged:
KAB wrote: I will provide the desert flood references if you acknowledge that present lack of similar data from the remaining deserts, craters, and other landmasses doesn't mean the global flood never happened. Sedimentary evidence from the Barringer and Grenada craters confirms a 4500 year global flood could not have taken place. So why would I acknowledge that such a flood could have happened?Thank you again for not providing the global flood references you claim you have. Reply »
Supreme Court Hillary Clinton Kentucky Derby Pope Francis Mexico China Egypt Wildfires Chris Brown Health Care Evolution Debate News
30,040 • Total comments across all topics: 272,231,947