the_seeker:

huxly before i start with u let me warn u dat i am well researched in paleontolgy and evolution so u cannot just dump junk u googled up on me. I expext that u should at least have the intelligence to read through your post and compress it to a comprehsible volume. nairaland is not for copy and paste but  for intelligent discusions and arguements.
My responses

1. It does not matter whether it was 50 Phd thesis or 500. I might even excuse u for what the motive of the forger was. It just proves how closed minded evolutionist are. This skull sat in the museum of natural history for 50 years but nobody cared to properly date(which would hav exposed the fraud) it instead they were busy writting thesis and drawing photos and tell us what this fossil eat and how it lived. There are countless examples of fogery or misrepresentations like nebraska man, embrayonic recapitulation theory, peppered moth story etc. Most of these are still deliibertly repeated as evidence of evolution even after the hoax was discovered. The problem is evoulutionist manufacture 'facts' from what is at best circumstantial evidence.
When it comes to evolutn and creation they act as if the hav neva heard of the theory of multiple working hypothesis.

I am so disappointed with your knowledge of the field.  I asked you for publically available documentation that you know the subject matter, yet you have NOT produced a SINGLE one.  Just some references of the so-called 50 or 500 PhDs would be nice.  Any scientifically credible references - yet you produce NOTHING.  And you have the audacity to come out and claim to know the field.

Yes - I admit there has been some hoaxes and fraud in biology as there has been in physics and chemistry.  But does that invalidate the entire field?   Absolutely NOT.   Who are the people that fine out these hoaxes and fraud?   Have you ever heard of a proclamation or revelation that some scientific theory is valid or in valid from some spiritual being?


I asked several questions, which you singularly failed to address.  Let me repeat them here:

1)  Why are fossils of mammals and birds NEVER found in the pre-cambrian?

2)   What explanation can you give for the fact that some whales (about 5%) are born with hindlimbs?

and additionally

3)  Why are there no placental mammals native to the Australian continent?



Please, Please, Please, try and address these question, with scientific material and references as much as possible.  I would appreciate it if your answers takes the form:

1)  Fossils of mammals and birds have never been found in the pre-cambrian BECAUSE - - - - -

2) Some whales are born with hindlimbs BECAUSE  - - - - -

3)  No placental mammals are native to Australia BECAUSE - - - - -


And provide some scientific reference that WE can all refer to.

the_seeker:

5. The eye and other organs of irreducible complexity will always remain a problem for evolutionist. My arguement is not whether differnt complexities of eye type does not occur in  nature as u r making it seem. The point is a human eye for example could neva have evolved from an optic nerve. How can a human eye function without a lens or partly developed one or a retina of cornea etc. This defied explanation.

Another question for you.

Why is there no evidence for a complex eye, of the type of mammals today, amonsgt creatures that live in the pre-cambrian?

You are strawmaning here again.  You are making a claim that evolution does not make.  Evolution does NOT make the claim that the eye evolved from the optic nerve.  This shows your total lack of knowledge in this area.  YOU ARE A BIG FAT CHRISTIAN LIAR 4 JESUS.  I have not option but to call you this.  Evolution ABSOLUTELY does NOT make this claim.

The most credible evolutionary explanation for the eyes says the eye evolved from a bundle of photo-sensitive skin cells.  So here again, you are a liar for Jesus.

the_seeker:

2. First of all i neva said neanderthal and homo sapiens i said neanderthals and cromagnon. Mind u evolutionist ealier assumed neandethals were ancestors  of homosapiens until overlap in time proved them wrong.  same is beginning to hapen in case of cromagnon and neanderthals.

This is what you said:

There is no doubt that neanderthals. Cromagnon. And the likes were just diff races of humans. This will make more sense to you if you compare the skeletons of a negroid an inuit, a caucasiod and a pgymy from africa to realize that the differences are more stark than those of modern humans and their alleged ancestors.

Recent discoveries of serious ovelaps in time of 'modern humans' and their alleged ancestors is beginning to cause serious headaches for evolutionist.

I asked you to explain what you meant by "difference races of humans".  Yet you did not.  Please explain this comment.

Neanderthal, Cromagnon, are what are loosely called humanoids - meaning the possess humanlike features.  There are many possibly hundreds of these different species.  But know, with DNA, we can check whether they are actually humans (Homo Sapien Sapien) or not.  It turns out that  Neanderthals were on a different evolutionary branch than Homo Sapiens Sapiens, exactly the result the comparative anatomy predicted.

Why would you Jesus create a different species of humans only to wipe the entire population all out again?

the_seeker:

3. Missing links? Am sure if evolutions found a bat fossil (assuming bats dont exist today) they would tag it as a missing link btw mamals and bird .
I am so suprised that u claim to knw anything abt evolutn and call achopteryx a missing link.  
something intersting happens often in evoultionary circles. One they find a 'missing link' they jubilate for the world to see. After a few year of thorough rsearch and criticism(by open minded scientists) it is uncermonously withdrawn as a fake or misrepresentation.
missing link is a series of thousands of transitns from a point A to a point B where a new species can be said to have formed. The implicatn of this is that we expect millions more fossils of the intermedies compared to Species A or B. So how come we cant find any (that is tangible) and we have plently of A and B?

You have no understanding for what evolution beings by transitional species.  The term "missing link" is unscientific, that is why I don't like to use it.

Transitional species are species that possess features intermediate between a primitive form and a more advance form.  For instance,

1)  Were there birds in the pre-cambrian?  Are there birds today?

These questions, if answered honestly will show that ato some point in the past some species started to develop features that are common in birds today.  


[size=18pt]                                                                Can you explain to be this fossils:
Anchiornis, only reported last month, See here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8273938.stm[/size]

the_seeker:

4. It is obvious u knw nothing about punctuated equilibrum. Why are u always lying. I neva claimed it refuted evolution. I only said it confimed its flaws in an attempt to fix it.
It claims tht orgsnisms remian stable for a long time( stasis) then undergo massive mutation to another species hence no need for intermediry forms. This theory however failed cos biologist could not comprehend such massive mutation

It is known that there are several mechanism that drive evolution:  Natural Selection being one of them, genetic drift another.  But it is not known whether these are sufficient ALONE to drive the entire process of speciation.  Evolution, like many things about nature, still remains unknown to us.

Punctuated Equilibrium itself is not a driving force, but a phenomemnon about the pace of evolution and the generation of new species.  The central thesis is like you said - long periods of stasis, punctuated by short periods of speciation.  But it DOES NOT say that there would be no transitional or intermediate form.  What you said is total nonsense and rubbish.  Just think about it - if PE is true in the way you described it, then the species from which new species arise would be the imtermediate forms.

For instance, if Species D arises from Species C via PE, then Species C is the intermediate to D.  Simple


So yet again, you are talking rubbish.

the_seeker:

5 the eye and other organs of ireducible complexity will always remian a problem for evolutionist. My arguemnt is not whether diff complexities of eyes do not occur in nature are u r making it seem. My point is, a human eye for example could neva have evolved from an optic nerve. Can a human eye function without a lens or a partly developed one or a retina or cornean or pupil or any of the over 20 vital parts. This defies explanation.  

With respect to the eye, evolution simple predicts that there will be simple eyes, with fewer features than some of the complex eyes of advance animals. Basically, once the genes to photosensitivity sensory skin cells had become established in a population, natural selection would slowly over about 400000 years fashion a more complex eyes from such simple eyes.  Many of such simple eyes have been found in nature and in the fossil record, and advance eyes appear in the fossil record much later than simple eyes.

And natural selection has the ability to work the other way.  If an animals lives in an environment were it does not uses its eye, natural selection will make the eye obsolete and eventually disappear.  There are many such species around today, exactly as predicted by Evolution By Natural Selection;

1)  The blind cave fish - Astyanax fasciatus mexicanus.  Check out an evolutionary explanation here: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/pz_myers_on_how_the_cavefish_lost_its_eyes/


[size=14pt]If Jesus created animals immutably,  why would he gives animals some organs, such as the eyes, that are no longer used?  Why would he have created flightless birds with rudimentary wings?
[/size]

Now, let me attempt your questions;

how did behaviours (something virtual) evolve?

Very good question.  This is an area I have just started to read up on and there are many good books in this subject.  One of the greatest problems here is that traces of behavior instances are not preserved in the fossil record, so a lot of this are simply inferential studies.  So the quick answer is - I don't know much about this area.

how did patterns and designs evolve? Darwin said in a letter to his friend 'the sight of the peacoks tail makes me sick'

You keep making an elementary mistake.  Evolution science is not revelation - so whatever Darwin said does not have to be taken as gospel.  There are many things that Darwin could not explain in his day, but have become explanable today.  The Peacocks tail is one such - There is  well-founded evolutionary explanation of design and patterns - It is called Sexual Selection.  I am surprise you ask question like this and you claim to be up to speed with the subject.   You are either lying for Jesus or plain ignorant.

give me one example of positive mutation in humans (apart from sickle cell. Lol)

There are plenty:

1)  Most of the population of Western Europe exists today because their descendents are those who survive the Black Death pandemic on the Middle ages. The survivors had the mutation that allowed them to survive the pandemic

2) Those prostitute in Kenya who are resistant to HIV: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080901205622.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/23/kenya.aids

3) The mutation that cause the lose of pigmentation amongst non-tropical dwelling humans, eg Europeans.  This is advantageous because people with dark skin living in the higher altitudes would not absorb enough high energy sun light to make vitamin D. So the would suffer from many developmental diseases like rickets, kwashoko, etc.

There are many more:

why has the bacteria remained unchanged for 1 billion years? Despite being the most mutant of organisms

Does evolution say that ALL organism HAVE TO evolute into other species?

what happened in the cambrian explosion?

The cambrian explosion records in fossil form the huge and diverse appearance of many different animal species with hard body parts that are easily fossilizable. It also records the early appearance of vastly new bodyplans.

How come drosphilia has showed not evolutn in the labs despite bombardment by scientis with rays for over sixty years. A pecies that produces a new genearipn every 7 days

How would you know they have not evolved?

And finally how did life originate?

I do not know.



Now, I have done my level best at addressing your question.   Would you mind returning the compliment and addressing the questions I asked directly, quoting the questions and providing your answer?  That is the only honest way of dealing with them.  As a  Christian, I would expect you to act in a most honest way, unless you are a BFCL4J.

I find it funny that some people try to use the bible as a science textbook. I am talking about the same bible which said diseases are caused by demons

.

Krayola:

@ mantraa. . . i was just goin to make a post regarding that eye stuff but I had to delete it because I was too rude in the post and couldn't control myself. The arrogance of this person somehow manages to dwarf his/her ignorance. How can someone spew such nonsense so confidently, while pouring insults on anyone who disagrees?

in the perpetual conflict btw religion and science over questions regardin the phenonem of our existence and world around us, religion has always bein a soreful loser because its answers it gives are subject to bigotry, vain pride, ignorance and dogma. the same struggle galileo faced.

huxely i quite apprecite your honest responses. Am a bit handicaped cos my pc crashed and have been following up on  my phone 4 d past few day so i may not be able provide detailed sources and research documents. I wil however provide u with strong arguements u cant refute. Also inserting quotes is proving a bit of a challenge on my phone browser. Am sure u will be able to match my responses to yours.

Like i said ealier it does not matter how many number of phd thesis was done. The point is that this fraud escaped detection for 50 years. Yet enough 'research' was done to establish its righful place on the human  family tree. How were they able to establish this from a forged skull of an orangutan and a man.  This shows a willingness and desperacy of evolutionist to accept anything as evidence as long as it furthers their cause. This is the reeason several frauds have passed unnoticed.


Answers to ur questions

1. Mamalian Fossil were not found before cambrian simply because God had not created them. god is sytematic and created things in stages. Are u aware that some toads hve more dna per cell than man? Thou u may claim man man is the 'peak' of evolutn. Our dna is not the most complex.

2. I sincerly dont understnd wat u mean by hind limbs. Do u mean dorsal fins cos i have neva heard of whale with legs.

3. Placentals are not found in australia cos God did not put them there. Are u aware that masurpial mice and fox are very identical to their mamalin cousins. How is this possible?


Are u aware how complex the trilobites eyes are? Although very diff in structure yet its complexity rival that of humans
i admit that i misplaced optic nerves for photo cells. My argument however still hold. How did photo cells evolve into the human eye which we knw is ireducibly complex

what explanatn do u need abt human races. Ok negroid, causacoid. Mogoloid etc are human races. because we can interbreed we belong to same species. Did homosapins interbreed with neanderthal? Yes. Same species diff race.

U have set up urslf by repeating this precambrian crap. Yes birds and mamals were abseent in precambrian. But how come complex species just appeared out of nowwhere without any apparent 'ancestors'?

It is obvois u hav no understanding of punctuated equilibrum. Stephen jay gould and neil deredge prosed this theory to explain absence of intermidiary forms. Being geologists they knew geological records were more or less compplete and this could not be used as an excuse for absence of missing links. They had to propose a theory whre massive mutation occured and intermediary forms  were few. This theory gained popularity among geologist but biologist proved it wrong.
U stll have not answered my question regaring the fact that intermediry forms(based on mainstream evolutn)  btw single specis A and B are expected to be in the thousands yet we find fossils of A and B, but these intermediaries remain elusive.
Abt the blind cave fish. God created it witout eyes cos it did no need them in the dark. He however gave it other complemntary senses.


u av answered my questions poorly

1. U  apear to be well read. D reason you have not come across explantn of evolutn of behaviour is that evolutionist have not found a way to get aroun the riddle.

2. I am not asking u how  sexual selection chose the first peacok with a pattern tail aginst one witot such tail. Am asking u how mindless mutation could have created such perfect and dizzingly complex pattern.

3. All the examples u gave me of humman mutations are just examples of resitance to disease. Our bodies were designed to do that. Have u heard of immunization? Lol

4. The bacteria so baffled a leading evolutionist that he has to confess 'what use is their incessant mutation if they do not produce evolutionary change'

5. Pls look up for my ealierr explanatn of cambrian explosion. What were the 'ancestors' of these complex organism tht appeared out of nowhere

6. I knw drosophillia has not evolved cos after 60 yrs of scintist trying to induce evoultn in it, not even a single new enzyme has appeared

u. I will let u free on the origin of life cos it will ever elude u and fellow evolutionists

the_seeker:

huxely i quite apprecite your honest responses. Am a bit handicaped cos my pc crashed and have been following up on  my phone 4 d past few day so i may not be able provide detailed sources and research documents. I wil however provide u with strong arguements u cant refute. Also inserting quotes is proving a bit of a challenge on my phone browser. Am sure u will be able to match my responses to yours.

Like i said ealier it does not matter how many number of phd thesis was done. The point is that this fraud escaped detection for 50 years. Yet enough 'research' was done to establish its righful place on the human  family tree. How were they able to establish this from a forged skull of an orangutan and a man.  This shows a willingness and desperacy of evolutionist to accept anything as evidence as long as it furthers their cause. This is the reeason several frauds have passed unnoticed.


Answers to your questions

1. Mamalian Fossil were not found before cambrian simply because God had not created them. god is sytematic and created things in stages. Are u aware that some toads hve more dna per cell than man? Thou u may claim man man is the 'peak' of evolutn. Our dna is not the most complex.

2. I sincerly dont understnd wat u mean by hind limbs. Do u mean dorsal fins cos i have neva heard of whale with legs.

3. Placentals are not found in australia cos God did not put them there. Are u aware that masurpial mice and fox are very identical to their mamalin cousins. How is this possible?


Are u aware how complex the trilobites eyes are? Although very diff in structure yet its complexity rival that of humans
i admit that i misplaced optic nerves for photo cells. My argument however still hold. How did photo cells evolve into the human eye which we knw is ireducibly complex

what explanatn do u need abt human races. Ok negroid, causacoid. Mogoloid etc are human races. because we can interbreed we belong to same species. Did homosapins interbreed with neanderthal? Yes. Same species diff race.

U have set up urslf by repeating this precambrian crap. Yes birds and mamals were abseent in precambrian. But how come complex species just appeared out of nowwhere without any apparent 'ancestors'?

It is obvois u hav no understanding of punctuated equilibrum. Stephen jay gould and neil deredge prosed this theory to explain absence of intermidiary forms. Being geologists they knew geological records were more or less compplete and this could not be used as an excuse for absence of missing links. They had to propose a theory whre massive mutation occured and intermediary forms  were few. This theory gained popularity among geologist but biologist proved it wrong.
U stll have not answered my question regaring the fact that intermediry forms(based on mainstream evolutn)  btw single specis A and B are expected to be in the thousands yet we find fossils of A and B, but these intermediaries remain elusive.
Abt the blind cave fish. God created it witout eyes cos it did no need them in the dark. He however gave it other complemntary senses.


u av answered my questions poorly

1. U  apear to be well read. D reason you have not come across explantn of evolutn of behaviour is that evolutionist have not found a way to get aroun the riddle.

2. I am not asking u how  sexual selection chose the first peacok with a pattern tail aginst one witot such tail. Am asking u how mindless mutation could have created such perfect and dizzingly complex pattern.

3. All the examples u gave me of humman mutations are just examples of resitance to disease. Our bodies were designed to do that. Have u heard of immunization? Lol

4. The bacteria so baffled a leading evolutionist that he has to confess 'what use is their incessant mutation if they do not produce evolutionary change'

5. Pls look up for my ealierr explanatn of cambrian explosion. What were the 'ancestors' of these complex organism tht appeared out of nowhere

6. I knw drosophillia has not evolved cos after 60 yrs of scintist trying to induce evoultn in it, not even a single new enzyme has appeared

u. I will let u free on the origin of life cos it will ever elude u and fellow evolutionists

Man, you lack of knowledge shines throw everytime you reach for the keyboard. Why don't you educate yourself here:


1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34GeUa7RzvY&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div
2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvkntXYnKW0&NR=1

huxley
typical evasive manuevers. You are trying to dodge eh! This is all you could come up with after 3 days of silence because you have been conered. You could have at least taken the pains of doing your typical copy and past instead of referring me to some website. Would it make sense if i equaly responded by referring you to some creationist websites?
Nairaland is for discussions and not exchange of websites. Next time dont start a topic if you havent the guts to sustain it.