Dishonesty in the scientific community?

[BlindSeeker]

I worked at a place called SkullsUnlimited when I was younger.

As I was cleaning a skull from a chiuahua, I noticed how much it looked like a vervet monkey skull.

So, everyone there believed in evolution. After a while they began to dislike my sense of humor,,

Cause, I told them that people came from domestic dog. And, showed them, the dog skull vs the monkey skull.

They still didn't see how absurd this evolutionary stuff was. LOL

Chiuahua skull

Vervet monkey skull

I think I sympathize with your co-workers.

It is nice to see some sound refutation applied where none is needed.

Excellent point . . . which was . . . ?

[rasputin89]

I worked at a place called SkullsUnlimited when I was younger.

As I was cleaning a skull from a chiuahua, I noticed how much it looked like a vervet monkey skull.

So, everyone there believed in evolution. After a while they began to dislike my sense of humor,,

Cause, I told them that people came from domestic dog. And, showed them, the dog skull vs the monkey skull.

They still didn't see how absurd this evolutionary stuff was. LOL

When you consider the age of our planet and the vastness of the fossil record evolution ceases to be absurd, in fact it becomes the most logical explanation of our planet's complex biological system.

The earliest organisms known to man date back to approximately 3.8 billion years ago. Human beings themselves only came into existence 2 million years ago, and we only established civilization 10 000 years ago.

What happened during this 3.7 billion year gap, between the origin of life and the appearance if humans, was evolution. It has been discovered that life originally appeared in the deep prehistoric oceans and spread from the sea onto the land. For 160 million years dinosaurs dominated the landscape until an environmental cataclysm made them extinct. The Earth now became the domain of mammals.

From the mammal kingdom humans eventually emerged. The various ancestral species; homo georgicus, homo anctecessor and homo heidelbergensis paint the timeline of human evolution.

Also, the genetic similarities in DNA between humans and apes indicates they both possess a common ancestor. Furthermore the genetic similarities between all mammals points towards an ancestor for all mammals.

[lekh l'kha]

When you consider the age of our planet and the vastness of the fossil record evolution ceases to be absurd, in fact it becomes the most logical explanation of our planet's complex biological system. The earliest organisms known to man date back to approximately 3.8 billion years ago. Human beings themselves only came into existence 2 million years ago, and we only established civilization 10 000 years ago.

What happened during this 3.7 billion year gap, between the origin of life and the appearance if humans, was evolution.

George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard stated, "In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences" .

(Quoted in Morris Troubled Waters, p91

"In the Cambrian strata of rock, all the invertebrate animals in the world suddenly appear completely complex creatures with no ancestors before them." (D. James Kennedy)

The facts don't fit with the following claim:

It has been discovered that life originally appeared in the deep prehistoric oceans and spread from the sea onto the land. For 160 million years dinosaurs dominated the landscape until an environmental cataclysm made them extinct. The Earth now became the domain of mammals.

From the mammal kingdom humans eventually emerged. The various ancestral species; homo georgicus, homo anctecessor and homo heidelbergensis paint the timeline of human evolution.

Anyone remember the days when after finding a Coelecanth fossil, natural science was telling us for years that the Coelecanth was a fish that had become extinct millions of years ago?

Funny how after this, the Ceolecanth was discovered alive and well in the Indian ocean in various places off the coast of Africa! (Oops)

If the Coelecanth is millions of years old, why didn't it evolve and change in some way from what it was "millions of years ago"? Or is it our great-great-grandpa?

Also, the genetic similarities in DNA between humans and apes indicates they both possess a common ancestor. Furthermore the genetic similarities between all mammals points towards an ancestor for all mammals.

Wow! Talk about an assumption with a total lack of evidence. There is such a huge jump in DNA from ape to man that to assume the similarities in DNA constitute evidence of an evolutionary process from one to the other is absurd.

Why aren't the apes all humans, then?

And since so many Dino fossils have been found buried in the soil of the earth, why haven't all the bones and fossils of the in-between "Lucy" and human and ape and "Lucy" been found.

Why can natural science find so many Dinosaurs without any evolutionary ancestors or descendants, and not find a single half-fish-half-ape and half-ape half-man, aside from "Lucy", who probably isn't what they claim she is anyway, since her bones had to be put together by relying only on the evolution-brainwashed human imagination of the man who found her?

"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences" .

(Quoted in Morris Troubled Waters, p91

"In the Cambrian strata of rock, all the invertebrate animals in the world suddenly appear completely complex creatures with no ancestors before them." (D. James Kennedy)

[rasputin89]

George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard stated, "In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences" .

(Quoted in Morris Troubled Waters, p91

There are many species which have been documented as having continuous transitional sequences. The modern horse follows a logical linear path as it evolved from its earliest ancestor, Hyracotherium. The fossils of horses and their ancestors show a gradual transformation from small pawed creatures into larger hooved animals. Similar lineages have been found for dogs and wolves.

Anyone remember the days when after finding a Coelecanth fossil, natural science was telling us for years that the Coelecanth was a fish that had become extinct millions of years ago?

Funny how after this, the Ceolecanth was discovered alive and well in the Indian ocean in various places off the coast of Africa! (Oops)

If the Coelecanth is millions of years old, why didn't it evolve and change in some way from what it was "millions of years ago"? Or is it our great-great-grandpa?

There are many organisms that have retained their physiology without adapting drastically. Crocodiles and sharks are two of the most ancient species on the Earth and have barely changed from their ancestral prehistoric forms.

Wow! Talk about an assumption with a total lack of evidence. There is such a huge jump in DNA from ape to man that to assume the similarities in DNA constitute evidence of an evolutionary process from one to the other is absurd.

There is no such "huge jump in DNA from ape to man." There is only a 2% difference between the DNA of homo sapien and that of the Rhesus Monkey. This does not assume that we evolved from these monkeys, but they we share a common ancestor somewhere in the past.

Why aren't the apes all humans, then?

................................huh?

And since so many Dino fossils have been found buried in the soil of the earth, why haven't all the bones and fossils of the in-between "Lucy" and human and ape and "Lucy" been found.

Why can natural science find so many Dinosaurs without any evolutionary ancestors or descendants, and not find a single half-fish-half-ape and half-ape half-man, aside from "Lucy", who probably isn't what they claim she is anyway, since her bones had to be put together by relying only on the evolution-brainwashed human imagination of the man who found her?

The reason all the fossils of everything that's ever existed haven't been found is very simple. Fossils only form under certain conditions. That is why there are only certain hotspots around the globe that produce vast quantities of fossils. Most dead animals decompose out in the open and their bones disintegrate over time. To fossilize these bones need to be covered by layers of sediment and buried under the Earth before it's too late. As for your half-fish-half-ape, such a creature has never existed and will only exist thanks to the magic of genetic engineering.

[lekh l'kha]

There are many species which have been documented as having continuous transitional sequences. The modern horse follows a logical linear path as it evolved from its earliest ancestor, Hyracotherium. The fossils of horses and their ancestors show a gradual transformation from small pawed creatures into larger hooved animals. Similar lineages have been found for dogs and wolves.

That still doesn't explain why in the oldest period - the very oldest strata on earth known as the Cambrian period - all the species discovered and studied appear suddenly, and in a complex form, without any trace of prior evolution (and that's according to one of the world's most accredited and qualified Paleontologists).

Anyone remember the days when after finding a Coelecanth fossil, natural science was telling us for years that the Coelecanth was a fish that had become extinct millions of years ago?

Funny how after this, the Ceolecanth was discovered alive and well in the Indian ocean in various places off the coast of Africa! (Oops)

If the Coelecanth is millions of years old, why didn't it evolve and change in some way from what it was "millions of years ago"? Or is it our great-great-grandpa?

There are many organisms that have retained their physiology without adapting drastically. Crocodiles and sharks are two of the most ancient species on the Earth and have barely changed from their ancestral prehistoric forms.

Here we go again: "Whenever our theory fails, or whenever solid, living proof of the falsehood of our religious faith in evolution is found, then it's an exception."

So natural scientists get to pick and choose which species on earth have barely changed from their ancestral prehistoric forms, and which haven't.

Wow! Talk about an assumption with a total lack of evidence. There is such a huge jump in DNA from ape to man that to assume the similarities in DNA constitute evidence of an evolutionary process from one to the other is absurd.

There is no such "huge jump in DNA from ape to man." There is only a 2% difference between the DNA of homo sapien and that of the Rhesus Monkey. This does not assume that we evolved from these monkeys, but they we share a common ancestor somewhere in the past.

Where's the proof? The 2% difference between human and Rhesus monkey DNA is not proof of your theory. I want proof.

[rasputin89]

That still doesn't explain why in the oldest period - the very oldest strata on earth known as the Cambrian period - all the species discovered and studied appear suddenly, and in a complex form, without any trace of prior evolution (and that's according to one of the world's most accredited and qualified Paleontologists).

The first organisms ever discovered were prehistoric bacteria. Bacteria are incredibly simple organisms without a nucleus and with free-floating RNA. The only evolutionary step that could prelude bacteria would be a natural chemical formation via the reaction of organic compounds.

Here we go again: "Whenever our theory fails, or whenever solid, living proof of the falsehood of our religious faith in evolution is found, then it's an exception."

So natural scientists get to pick and choose which species on earth have barely changed from their ancestral prehistoric forms, and which haven't.

The Coelecanth, Shark and Crocodile are not exempt from the laws of natural selection. For that is what drives evolution (natural selection). The strongest of a species that possesses the most beneficial genetic adaptations will pass on their DNA to the next generation. But, I must agree that the way scientists analyze evidence is a fiendish way to "pick and choose" how species evolve.

There is no such "huge jump in DNA from ape to man." There is only a 2% difference between the DNA of homo sapien and that of the Rhesus Monkey. This does not assume that we evolved from these monkeys, but they we share a common ancestor somewhere in the past.

Where's the proof? The 2% difference between human and Rhesus monkey DNA is not proof of your theory. I want proof.

I too want proof. It's good to know there are others that wish to join me in proving evolution by natural selection. The evidence is continually growing, with no sign of shrinking.

[Fez]

You want proof? Proof? OK, what about bigfoot then? It's not worth fighting about. Concentrate on Jesus. If half of us studied our bibles as much as we studied evolution vs creation vs monkeys, the world would be a much better place.

All it takes is faith

[rasputin89]

You want proof? Proof? OK, what about bigfoot then? It's not worth fighting about. Concentrate on Jesus. If half of us studied our bibles as much as we studied evolution vs creation vs monkeys, the world would be a much better place.

All it takes is faith

Ironically, studying the bible just leads to more debate and argument over what is in that book.

I think that science is crucial for advancing our knowledge of the universe and for improving our quality of life. Texts from the past and religious books can teach good (or sometimes bad) moral reasoning for society. But, studying ancient literature will not advance medicine, energy, and other crucial factors in our society.

[lekh l'kha]

The first organisms ever discovered were prehistoric bacteria. Bacteria are incredibly simple organisms without a nucleus and with free-floating RNA. The only evolutionary step that could prelude bacteria would be a natural chemical formation via the reaction of organic compounds.

Thanks for your reply, rasputin89.

Right. And then these natural chemical formations (each of which occurred by chance) miraculously continued, and continued and continued, miraculously forming more and more complex structures, with codes and instructions for reproduction contained within their DNA (which resemble mathematical codes that under normal circumstances only incredibly advanced intelligence could provide); ...

... and there was enough time for all this to just develop naturally.

But you still avoided answering my question:

1 Why do traces of complex life-forms appear suddenly in the Cambrian strata?

And here are some more questions I'd like you to answer:

2 Did the Australian Emu evolve from the Ostrich, or did the Ostrich evolve from the Emu?

Or do they have a common ancestor?

3 What if in a few million Emus and Ostriches have long since become extinct and natural scientists find fossils of both, and then claim the Ostrich evolved from the Emu?

4 Is it absolutely impossible within all possible realms and faculties of scientific thinking that within the DNA molecule of each species is a built-in ability to adapt to changes so that physiological changes can be contained within each species' DNA molecules; and that this was actually planned in the same way that today a computer program may be programmed to write its own programs?

Here we go again: "Whenever our theory fails, or whenever solid, living proof of the falsehood of our religious faith in evolution is found, then it's an exception."

So natural scientists get to pick and choose which species on earth have barely changed from their ancestral prehistoric forms, and which haven't.

The Coelecanth, Shark and Crocodile are not exempt from the laws of natural selection. For that is what drives evolution (natural selection). The strongest of a species that possesses the most beneficial genetic adaptations will pass on their DNA to the next generation.

But, I must agree that the way scientists analyze evidence is a fiendish way to "pick and choose" how species evolve.

Thank you for admitting that.

There is no such "huge jump in DNA from ape to man." There is only a 2% difference between the DNA of homo sapien and that of the Rhesus Monkey. This does not assume that we evolved from these monkeys, but they we share a common ancestor somewhere in the past.

Where's the proof? The 2% difference between human and Rhesus monkey DNA is not proof of your theory. I want proof.

I too want proof. It's good to know there are others that wish to join me in proving evolution by natural selection. The evidence is continually growing, with no sign of shrinking.

So you're going to provide us with the evidence here in this thread, right? I mean, you're not going to just claim there's evidence and it's growing, and not provide it, right?

And I would like you to answer some more questions:

5 Assuming that, for example, these horse-like creatures that you spoke about (the ancestors of the modern horse) were not individual species similar to, yet individual from the horses of today (like Emus and Ostriches are similar and one species, yet individual and different), is it impossible that within the DNA of each species is the ability to adapt to environment etc, so that physiological changes can take place?

6 Is ability to adapt and change contained within the DNA molecule proof of evolution or creation by intelligent design?

7 Does not physiological change (not brought about through an inherent D.N.A - produced ability to adapt) always involve cell-mutation, and does not cell-mutation always result in deformity?

The last question I want to ask you is a multiple choice-question (so it's nice and easy):

8 Imagine you are standing in front of a wall with two diagrams: a diagram of a Boeing 747 and its mechanical workings, and next to it, a diagram of the human eye with its workings.

Which of them was designed by intelligent design:

(a) Neither of them.

(b) Both of them.

Edited July 9, 2009 by lekh l'kha

[lekh l'kha]

You want proof? Proof? OK, what about bigfoot then? It's not worth fighting about. Concentrate on Jesus. If half of us studied our bibles as much as we studied evolution vs creation vs monkeys, the world would be a much better place.

All it takes is faith

Ironically, studying the bible just leads to more debate and argument over what is in that book.

I think that science is crucial for advancing our knowledge of the universe and for improving our quality of life. Texts from the past and religious books can teach good (or sometimes bad) moral reasoning for society. But, studying ancient literature will not advance medicine, energy, and other crucial factors in our society.

That's no reason not to study the Bible, rasputin.

Anyways, Fez. I understand why you say what you're saying, but this is kinda like the "Faith vs. science board and Rasputin is kinda like a welcome guest who picked the right board at Worthy Forums.

I'm not mad at him or fighting with him - he sure don't seem like he's here with the sole motive of playing games and attacking Christianity. And he aint fightin' either.

I'll know when it's my time to exit - soon as that stale-mate has been reached in this thread between me and Rasputin (yeah I know, there's no competition between religious faith in evolution and faith in the revealed Word of God , but I'll be outta this thread later, as soon as I'm done and my time is up)