onlyfacts:


"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." -- Charles Darwin

"more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world".
- Charles Darwin

Newton believed in Alchemy, Einstein doubted the big bang despite his theory supporting it, He also doubted the validity of Quantum Mechanics despite his contributions to it. We also have Charles darwin, who made racist claims. This in no way disproved the theories they laid out.


Did you even read my last post where I said " racism in no way disproves the theory of evolution". We've come a long way in our understanding of the theory of evolution since the days of Darwin and even corrected some of his previous misconceptions on it . We now understand we are one specie, HOMO SAPIEN, and all other HOMO species have now become extinct (thanks to us by the way).

In fact evolution tells us that despite our different "races", we are one specie called HOMO SAPIEN that migrated out of africa 50,000 years ago, (wiping off other Human Species along the way e.g Homo Neanderthalis), and over the millenia, our bodies got modified slightly different to better survive in different climatic and geographical locations, giving rise to what we now call "races".


If you know all these I see no reason why you would think the theory of evolution causes racism.

Heathen777:


Newton believed in Alchemy, Einstein doubted the big bang despite his theory supporting it, He also doubted the validity of Quantum Mechanics despite his contributions to it. We also have Charles darwin, who made racist claims. This in no way disproved the theories they laid out.


Did you even read my last post where I said " racism in no way disproves the theory of evolution". We've come a long way in our understanding of the theory of evolution since the days of Darwin and even corrected some of his previous misconceptions on it . We now understand we are one specie, HOMO SAPIEN, and all other HOMO species have now become extinct (thanks to us by the way).

In fact evolution tells us that despite our different "races", we are one specie called HOMO SAPIEN that migrated out of africa 50,000 years ago, (wiping off other Human Species along the way e.g Homo Neanderthalis), and over the millenia, our bodies got modified slightly different to better survive in different climatic and geographical locations, giving rise to what we now call "races".


If you know all these I see no reason why you would think the theory of evolution causes racism.

Let me address some of the scientific fraud in evolution

You need to realise that the mathematically odds of one specie jumping to another or formed by mutation and natural selection as is taught in EVOLUTION is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion!

Now this supposedly happened several times over for all the different species we have under EVOLUTION, which is simply an impossible odd, it's a computing disaster!

Fossil records doesn't also support it, as their are vital "missing links/ transitional fossils" and "important missing link/transitional fossil frauds". I will mention only notably ones by genuine scientist, others are ongoing currently. Examples are Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Archaeoraptor, Cardiff Giant, Alyoshenka, Fake Fannia Fly, Amphicoelias fragillimus, Piluxy River Tracks, Fiji Mermaid amongst others.
Today it is recognized that the relationship of modern humans to the present anthropoid apes (e.g., chimpanzees) is through common ancestors rather than through direct descent. These ancestors have yet to be identified, but it is believed ape-hominid divergence may have occurred 6 to 10 million years ago.

Without these vital missing links evolution is based on poor evidence.

Heathen777
1. Darwin and other evolutionist knew the flaw of their theory would lie on the lack of transitional fossils or last common ancestor (aside other flaws) when propounding the theory.. See below:

"Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.

In 1859, when Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known. Darwin described the perceived lack of transitional fossils as, "... the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory,"
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil



2. Transitional fossil/last common ancestor LCA aka missing links not forth coming despite centuries. See below:

"Scientists have been on the trail of the LCA for decades, and they still have not found it. But many are convinced that they have established enough information to make the hunt a lot easier. They think they know roughly when and where the LCA lived. They even have a reasonable idea of what it looked like and how it behaved."
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170517-we-have-still-not-found-the-missing-link-between-us-and-apes



3. Despite overwhelming evidence not in support of the last common ancestor or even the possibility of discovering any vital transitional fossil, evolutionist still hang on by the thread for a life line to justify the theory. See below:

"Today it is recognized that the relationship of modern humans to the present anthropoid apes (e.g., chimpanzees) is through common ancestors rather than through direct descent. These ancestors have yet to be identified, but ape-hominid divergence MAY have occurred 6 to 10 million years ago."
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170517-we-have-still-not-found-the-missing-link-between-us-and-apes

onlyfacts:
Heathen777
1. Darwin and other evolutionist knew the flaw of their theory would lie on the lack of transitional fossils or last common ancestor (aside other flaws) when propounding the theory.. See below:

"Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.

In 1859, when Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known. Darwin described the perceived lack of transitional fossils as, "... the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory,"
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Yes, at the time the evolutionary theory by natural selection was put forth, there were only a handfull of fossils. Now we have museums littered with numerous fossils gathered from multiple sites globally, decades after Darwin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

onlyfacts:
Heathen777
2. Transitional fossil/last common ancestor LCA aka missing links not forth coming despite centuries. See below:

"Scientists have been on the trail of the LCA for decades, and they still have not found it. But many are convinced that they have established enough information to make the hunt a lot easier. They think they know roughly when and where the LCA lived. They even have a reasonable idea of what it looked like and how it behaved."
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170517-we-have-still-not-found-the-missing-link-between-us-and-apes

3. Despite overwhelming evidence not in support of the last common ancestor or even the possibility of discovering any vital transitional fossil, evolutionist still hang on by the thread for a life line to justify the theory. See below:

"Today it is recognized that the relationship of modern humans to the present anthropoid apes (e.g., chimpanzees) is through common ancestors rather than through direct descent. These ancestors have yet to be identified, but ape-hominid divergence MAY have occurred 6 to 10 million years ago."
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170517-we-have-still-not-found-the-missing-link-between-us-and-apes

You have to keep in mind that the time period of Human-Chimpanzee last common ancestor is only a thin sliver of geological history. Organisms are rarely preserved in nature, as the ecosystem finds way to recycle dead animals remains in a matter of days. Expecting to find fossils of a specie that lived within a few million years is no easy task, and it's quite possible that no fossil have been preserved...

Fossils are not the only way to prove evolution, we have evidence from anatomy, vestigial structures, homologous features, analogous features, embryology, molecular biology, homologous genes, biogeography, direct observation. etc

onlyfacts:


Let me address some of the scientific fraud in evolution

You need to realise that the mathematically odds of one specie jumping to another or formed by mutation and natural selection as is taught in EVOLUTION is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion!

Now this supposedly happened several times over for all the different species we have under EVOLUTION, which is simply an impossible odd, it's a computing disaster!

We've observed new species form over and over again. It's literally the reason Darwin came up with his book Origin of Species, it's the reason why we see antibiotic resistance, formation of new species is what makes agriculture of farm and animals possible.

onlyfacts:

Fossil records doesn't also support it, as their are vital "missing links/ transitional fossils" and "important missing link/transitional fossil frauds". I will mention only notably ones by genuine scientist, others are ongoing currently. Examples are Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Archaeoraptor, Cardiff Giant, Alyoshenka, Fake Fannia Fly, Amphicoelias fragillimus, Piluxy River Tracks, Fiji Mermaid amongst others.

Those we're disproven by scientist through careful studying of the specimen. If you did any studying on this subject you wouldn't be repeating this tire rhetoric that ironically attempts to disprove evolution by showing the amount of care done in scrutinizing the evidence for it.

onlyfacts:

Today it is recognized that the relationship of modern humans to the present anthropoid apes (e.g., chimpanzees) is through common ancestors rather than through direct descent. These ancestors have yet to be identified, but it is believed ape-hominid divergence may have occurred 6 to 10 million years ago. Without these vital missing links evolution is based on poor evidence.

[/quote]

If you understand how fossilization works you wouldn't be making such an ill-conceived criteria for the validity of evolution. There is no guarantee that any specie will fossilize, so obviously there would be cases of undiscovered transitional fossils. But we do have a plethora of transitional fossils https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils, and fossils aren't the only form of evidence for evolution. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-and-natural-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution

Heathen777:


Yes, at the time the evolutionary theory by natural selection was put forth, there were only a handfull of fossils. Now we have museums littered with numerous fossils gathered from multiple sites globally, decades after Darwin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils




You have to keep in mind that the time period of Human-Chimpanzee last common ancestor is only a thin sliver of geological history. Organisms are rarely preserved in nature, as the ecosystem finds way to recycle dead animals remains in a matter of days. Expecting to find fossils of a specie that lived within a few million years is no easy task, and it's quite possible that no fossil have been preserved...

Fossils are not the only way to prove evolution, we have evidence from anatomy, vestigial structures, homologous features, analogous features, embryology, molecular biology, homologous genes, biogeography, direct observation. etc

Darwin himself said that a lack of TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS will be the undoing of his theory. As missing links are not forth coming, Palaeontologist have had to update the meaning of transitional fossil now to represent not just missing links alone but the LCA. It is now ANY fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral GROUP and its derived descendant GROUP.
Ps:Note the word GROUP and not individual
species.

Due to this "transitional fossil" is an ill-defined concept because no fossil species could be DIRECTLY identified as an "ancestor" in a phylogeny.

From the highlighted above, none of those fields put up strong evidence in support of evolution, rather evolutionist seek to use all those fields to DRAW UP A PATTERN that they claim can support evolution.

So simply put, evolution is not backed up by solid evidence.

Heathen777:


We've observed new species form over and over again. It's literally the reason Darwin came up with his book Origin of Species, it's the reason why we see antibiotic resistance, formation of new species is what makes agriculture of farm and animals possible.


Those we're disproven by scientist through careful studying of the specimen. If you did any studying on this subject you wouldn't be repeating this tire rhetoric that ironically attempts to disprove evolution by showing the amount of care done in scrutinizing the evidence for it.




If you understand how fossilization works you wouldn't be making such an ill-conceived criteria for the validity of evolution. There is no guarantee that any specie will fossilize, so obviously there would be cases of undiscovered transitional fossils. [b]But we do have a plethora of transitional fossils[/b]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils, and fossils aren't the only form of evidence for evolution. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-and-natural-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution

1. Antibiotic resistance doesn't give rise to new species, it's still the same old species that has adapted to living in certain conditions. When plasmodium of malaria develops resistance to drugs like chloroquine it is still a malaria plasmodium and not a new specie. Same applies to staphylococcus aureus that develops resistance to methicillin, it is still a staphylococcus aureus specie and not a new species. It has undergone adaptation, but has not evolved to a new microorganism outside of its genus or specie. Genetic engineering in agriculture is not by NATURAL SELECTION is it? but by intelligent careful manipulation of the genome by an INTELLIGENT BEING, isnt it?

2. The fossils are not forth coming, simple. Non-bird dinosaurs lived between about 245 and 66 million years ago, in a time known as the Mesozoic Era, yet we have ample evidence of their fossils. According to you, Organisms are rarely preserved in nature, as the ecosystem finds way to recycle dead animals remains in a matter of days. Expecting to find fossils of a specie that lived within a few million years is no easy task, and it's quite possible that no fossil have been preserved. We found fossils at least 66million years old in abundance but LCA for man 6 to 10 million years ago isn't forth coming, doesn't that tell you something, that those species must be mythical.

Yes we have a plethora of fossils from real animals and not mythical ones. And those animals are not transitional fossils mind you. TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS are no longer understood as missing links(cause finding a missing link is an impossible task according to evolutionist), scientist believe all animals alive will undergo evolution as such all of us are TRANSITIONING to other future species. So those fossils are either extinct or normal remains of creatures alive, but since we are all transitional species by evolutionist, it fits their description as transitional fossils.

@LordReed:

OLAADEGBU:


www.nairaland.com/attachments/11709865_evolutionisnotscience_jpege16985125ec806f56cf3517b621eab54

www.nairaland.com/attachments/11709864_evolutionnot_jpegb6dc435805825bc538d02b692a8904a0

OLAADEGBU:


www.nairaland.com/attachments/11710009_evolutionpalm_jpegb3fc467f88835d0f1826d972f108afef

Evolution is based on imagination.

OLAADEGBU:


www.nairaland.com/attachments/11710173_lettherebetruthv3n2_jpeg532350cfc7551a6727d46a5975703040

At least you can comfort yourself into believing that you are smarter than your fellow Negroes who don't believe in your fairy-tale delusions.

Are evolutionists really smart?

OLAADEGBU:


See what the proponents of the evolutionary theory wrote:

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." -- Charles Darwin

"No rational man, cognisant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites." -- Thomas Huxley

"The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolians, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characteristics, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old-youth of the species Homo sapiens." -- Henry Fairfield Osborn

Which is can be found in the book below.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/11710220_originofspecies_jpeg16ecf99469428fd36cdc10ca5f3b4a2b

The funny thing is that they have indoctrinated not only the Caucasians but also blacks into believing that they are inferior to the Caucasians and evolutionists like LordReed would ignorantly swallow the bait hook, line and stinker. They have equally brainwashed students of the need of abortion, moral relativism, same sex marriage, climate change, violence by way of protests, liberal ideologies and so on. This is what happens when they refuse to believe the truth they then become open to believing and teaching a lie.

I wonder why they get offended when they are related with monkeys.