What is the Evidence of Mutations and New Information

[one.opinion]

15 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

I am not claiming to know more than the experts.

When you say the fossil record does not contain enough transitional species, that's exactly what you claim. How do we decide what "enough" is? In  your opinion, there aren't any transitional species at all. Again, claiming to know more than the experts.

 

15 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

But let's start with a zoologist named Ernst Haeckel.   He created an embryo chart to prove that human beings are biologically related to fish, lizards, pigs, rabbits and chickens.

History and science have shown that several of his drawings were erroneous at best, and fraudulent at worst.

15 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

It's wrong and it is known to be wrong, but it is still circulated as true.

The major errors of Haeckel's work are well-known at this point. I'd like to see evidence that it is "still circulated as true."

15 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Then there was Piltdown man that was touted for decades as proof by the "experts" that humans came from apes.  It was an embarrassment to the scientific community in England for it be found to be a hoax.

The hoax was first originated by an amateur archaeologist, Charles Dawson, but it appears that it was perpetuated by Arthur Smith Woodward at the Natural History Museum. This discovery was challenged almost from the beginning with several prominent anthropologists disputing the authenticity of the sample. It did take about 40 years, but it was fully recognized as a forgery in 1953.

16 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The real beginning of why Evolution is taught in American schools was the "Nebraska man" tooth.   That turned out to be wrong as well. It was an attempt to prove a theory (again working backwards) and even though it failed, the glaring failure of the "experts" to recognize a pig's tooth doesn't give them a moment' pause about their ability to support Evolution.

"Nebraska man" was based on a single tooth. It was first described by Henry Fairfield Osborne in 1922. An intensive dig was performed in the summers of 1925 and 1926, and other fossil remains were found. It turned out it was an extinct pig tooth and a retraction was made in 1927. This was not a hoax, but an over-zealous error. And further scientific investigation and discovery overturned the error.

16 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Neanderthal man has turned out to be hoax.  Dr. Reiner Protsch was the one who popularized Neanderthal, but he was forced to great disgrace and embarrassment and the loss of his job in 2005, that he purposely made up the whole thing. 

Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten was indeed guilty of perpetrating hoaxes, but his most famous hoax was a link between Neanderthals and modern humans, not the Neanderthal itself. His hoaxes were discovered and appropriate action was taken. Just as in any other field, a percentage of individuals are enticed by base motives and compromise acceptable professional behavior.

Let me repeat - Neanderthals ARE NOT a hoax. Thousands of specimens have been discovered and DNA has actually been extracted AND SEQUENCED! Molecular biologists confirm that most modern humans (except some from certain parts of Africa) actually have some Neanderthal DNA sequence in our genomes (https://www.today.com/health/how-much-neanderthal-dna-do-humans-have-what-does-it-t126372).

16 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Again, if the evidence for Evolution were solid, there would not be a reason for degreed scientists  in the evolutionary community make stuff up. So, I have reason to doubt and challenge the experts given their lack of honesty and credibility.  What else has been foisted upon us by "the experts" that we don't yet know is actually a fraud?

Fame and fortune are powerful motivators and have indeed led to some scientists committing outright fraud. That is the importance of peer review. Claims are checked and double-checked and if fraud is perpetrated, it is nearly impossible for it to escape notice. This is true in all biological fields, not just evolution. There is not a special effort for evolutionary biologists to commit fraud.

16 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

People tend to forget that back in 2001-2002, we were told that if we did nothing about "global warming" that certain species of animals would be extinct, that the polar ice caps would melt, there would be catastrophic results in ten years, and so on.

Share support for these claims, please.

16 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

And these frauds are not just back 100 years ago. They occur quite recently as well

Share support for this claim, please.

 

16 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

It's interesting that you don't accept the word of an all-knowing, infallible God, but you are so quick to trust the word of fallible little men who have a poor track record of honesty.

Congratulations, it took you a LOT of posts before you started resorting to the ad hominems. 

[Guest shiloh357]

9 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

When you say the fossil record does not contain enough transitional species, that's exactly what you claim. How do we decide what "enough" is? In  your opinion, there aren't any transitional species at all. Again, claiming to know more than the experts.

I have explained that.  We should be able to see unbroken chains of transitions in the fossil record and we don't see that.  I am not claiming to know more than experts;  I am claiming that the experts are less than honest and are not men and women of integrity.

Quote

 

History and science have shown that several of his drawings were erroneous at best, and fraudulent at worst.

The major errors of Haeckel's work are well-known at this point. I'd like to see evidence that it is "still circulated as true."

The hoax was first originated by an amateur archaeologist, Charles Dawson, but it appears that it was perpetuated by Arthur Smith Woodward at the Natural History Museum. This discovery was challenged almost from the beginning with several prominent anthropologists disputing the authenticity of the sample. It did take about 40 years, but it was fully recognized as a forgery in 1953.

"Nebraska man" was based on a single tooth. It was first described by Henry Fairfield Osborne in 1922. An intensive dig was performed in the summers of 1925 and 1926, and other fossil remains were found. It turned out it was an extinct pig tooth and a retraction was made in 1927. This was not a hoax, but an over-zealous error. And further scientific investigation and discovery overturned the error.

Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten was indeed guilty of perpetrating hoaxes, but his most famous hoax was a link between Neanderthals and modern humans, not the Neanderthal itself. His hoaxes were discovered and appropriate action was taken. Just as in any other field, a percentage of individuals are enticed by base motives and compromise acceptable professional behavior.

 

Thanks for making my point.

 

Quote

Let me repeat - Neanderthals ARE NOT a hoax. Thousands of specimens have been discovered and DNA has actually been extracted AND SEQUENCED! Molecular biologists confirm that most modern humans (except some from certain parts of Africa) actually have some Neanderthal DNA sequence in our genomes (https://www.today.com/health/how-much-neanderthal-dna-do-humans-have-what-does-it-t126372).

Yes, it is a hoax. 

 

Quote

Fame and fortune are powerful motivators and have indeed led to some scientists committing outright fraud. That is the importance of peer review. Claims are checked and double-checked and if fraud is perpetrated, it is nearly impossible for it to escape notice. This is true in all biological fields, not just evolution. There is not a special effort for evolutionary biologists to commit fraud.

Except that hoaxes would have been impossible to commit if evolution were true.
 

Quote

Congratulations, it took you a LOT of posts before you started resorting to the ad hominems. 

 

They are fallible little men.  That's' an accurate description of these frauds that try to foist evolution on everyone else, no questions asked.

[one.opinion]

4 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Yes, it is a hoax.

Some points we have discussed are debatable. The existence of Neanderthals is not one of them. Not even AiG disputes this. (https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/neanderthal/)

[Guest shiloh357]

9 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Some points we have discussed are debatable. The existence of Neanderthals is not one of them. Not even AiG disputes this. (https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/neanderthal/)

I am not saying their existence was a hoax.  I am saying that they are fully human and not an evolutionary ancestor to modern man. 

[one.opinion]

17 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Neanderthal man has turned out to be hoax.

 

8 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

I am not saying their existence was a hoax.

You might want to call it a night. You are contradicting yourself.

[one.opinion]

27 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Except that hoaxes would have been impossible to commit if evolution were true.

I somehow missed this nugget earlier. Hoaxes related to actual events can and do happen on a routine basis. That's what makes people believe them.

[Guest shiloh357]

On ‎8‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 8:05 PM, one.opinion said:

 

You might want to call it a night. You are contradicting yourself.

No, I am not contradicting myself.   The hoax is not that the people existed.   The hoax is that we "evolved" from them.   They were as fully human as we are.  If they were not a hoax, Protsch would not have had to resign in disgrace.

[Guest shiloh357]

On ‎8‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 8:07 PM, one.opinion said:

I somehow missed this nugget earlier. Hoaxes related to actual events can and do happen on a routine basis. That's what makes people believe them.

We're  talking about science.  If evolution were true, you can't create a hoax to prove evolution is true.   I mean, I guess you could but you would be a laughing stock.   

It is precisely because of the lack of meaningful evidence that hoax after hoax was perpetrated.  Actually, evolution itself is the grand hoax.

If the scientific community can't come up with real evidence that actually prove their claim, they need to just be honest and admit that their claim simply isn't  true.  But since the alternative to evolution is that the Bible is true, Evolutionists will keep trying promote their pitiful little non-theory.

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

We're  talking about science.  If evolution were true, you can't create a hoax to prove evolution is true.

You are talking in circles. Obviously hoaxes, being untrue, cannot prove anything is true. No one suggested otherwise. However, if a hoax is exposed, it does not mean that an entire field is false. Fraudulent results have crept their way into the literature in many different scientific fields. These fields continue to exist because a vast majority of the work done is honest and reproducible.

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Actually, evolution itself is the grand hoax.

Please provide the evidence you use to support this claim. You fully accept the concept of adaptation and speciation. Imagine what would happen on a larger time scale through a long series of large numbers of adaptation and speciation events. Eventually some of these new species would be far different from one another. Why do you believe that this is not possible?

You said yourself that Neanderthals were a hoax. I informed you that they were not. You insisted that they were. I provided a link to you from AiG showing that they accept that Neanderthals existed and all of a sudden, your story changes. "No, no, no, I didn't mean exactly what I said, I meant what I didn't say!!" Let's run the replay reel:

On 8/26/2018 at 2:52 AM, shiloh357 said:

Neanderthal man has turned out to be hoax.

 

On 8/26/2018 at 7:22 PM, one.opinion said:

Let me repeat - Neanderthals ARE NOT a hoax.

 

On 8/26/2018 at 7:37 PM, shiloh357 said:

Yes, it is a hoax. 

 

On 8/26/2018 at 7:44 PM, one.opinion said:

Some points we have discussed are debatable. The existence of Neanderthals is not one of them. Not even AiG disputes this. (https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/neanderthal/)

 

On 8/26/2018 at 7:56 PM, shiloh357 said:

I am not saying their existence was a hoax.  I am saying that they are fully human and not an evolutionary ancestor to modern man.

It's exactly what you said and you know it. Your story changed dramatically when I put a link in front of you to reflect the knowledge of those that have a grasp of the facts that you lack. Your words betray you.

On 8/26/2018 at 2:52 AM, shiloh357 said:

Quote

Back up your claims. If you champion critical thinking, provide evidence that what you say is verified. Show the 15 year old predictions that haven't come to pass. I can show you evidence of global warming, but I suspect you won't pay any attention to that either if it contradicts your preferred narrative.

People tend to forget that back in 2001-2002, we were told that if we did nothing about "global warming" that certain species of animals would be extinct, that the polar ice caps would melt, there would be catastrophic results in ten years, and so on.

 

On 8/26/2018 at 7:22 PM, one.opinion said:

Share support for these claims, please.

Still waiting on this...

On 8/26/2018 at 7:22 PM, one.opinion said:

On 8/26/2018 at 2:52 AM, shiloh357 said:

And these frauds are not just back 100 years ago. They occur quite recently as well

Share support for this claim, please.

Still waiting on this...

 

Your argumentation in this thread is falling apart at the seems. You might want to take a bit of a break, collect some facts, maybe read a little bit on topics you want to argue, and then maybe post something that has been carefully examined before written.

[Guest shiloh357]

15 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

You are talking in circles. Obviously hoaxes, being untrue, cannot prove anything is true. No one suggested otherwise. However, if a hoax is exposed, it does not mean that an entire field is false.

The purpose behind the hoaxes was to support Evolution, to convince people that it is true.  If Evolution were true, such hoaxes would be unnecessary and no on would need to fool people into believing what was already proven to be true.  But Evolution isn't anywhere close to being true and hoaxes keep showing up right up until today.

Quote

Fraudulent results have crept their way into the literature in many different scientific fields. These fields continue to exist because a vast majority of the work done is honest and reproducible.

But Evolution is different.  Evolution is an overarching paradigm that is assumed to be true and other fields of research operate under that assumption.  It's almost like science can't function if evolution isn't real.   It's one thing for someone to pull a fast one and claiming a discovery that isn't true in some subfield of research.   But the hoaxes I mentioned are meant to validate the entire Evolution paradigm that much of science rests upon.  All natural sciences, especially those in the various biological fields, operate under the assumption that evolution is proven fact, when it isn't. 

Quote

Please provide the evidence you use to support this claim. You fully accept the concept of adaptation and speciation. Imagine what would happen on a larger time scale through a long series of large numbers of adaptation and speciation events. Eventually some of these new species would be far different from one another. Why do you believe that this is not possible?

It's your job to show evidence for that to happen.  You can't.  Evolution is not proven and is not intuitively observed.

Quote

You said yourself that Neanderthals were a hoax. I informed you that they were not. You insisted that they were. I provided a link to you from AiG showing that they accept that Neanderthals existed and all of a sudden, your story changes. "No, no, no, I didn't mean exactly what I said, I meant what I didn't say!!" Let's run the replay reel:

No, my story didn't change.   That's just your dishonest handling of my words  You're as dishonest with my words as you are with God's words.  I clarified what I meant.   My story did not change.  Neanderthal IS a hoax. 

Quote

Your argumentation in this thread is falling apart at the seems. You might want to take a bit of a break, collect some facts, maybe read a little bit on topics you want to argue, and then maybe post something that has been carefully examined before written.

No, my argument isn't falling apart at all.   You still cannot provide evidence for mutations that lead to animals evolving into completely different animals.  Mutations don't add information; they remove information.    You have had to deflect to micro-evolution and demand that since horses changed over time, it means that dinosaurs can turn into birds.   

You provided a lot of evidence to refute arguments I didn't raise, because you can't rally satisfy the OP.  My argument still stands.

And your argument completely falls apart on a theological basis and the bizarre way you have to pervert the Bible to support the delusion of Evolution.