Does "Sin" Prove Evolution to be Incorrect?

[teddyv]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

I had said evolutionists are dishonest. 

Earnest Haekle recapitulation theories are still taught as truth today, though his fraud was exposed back in 1860.  Horse evolution, proven false, still appears in museums today.  "Whale legs," proven false are for reproduction, but still taught as vestigial.   Archaeopteryx, faked.  Lucy faked.  Nebraska man, faked.  Piltdown man, faked.  We get our 'depression genes' from Neanderthal, faked. 

There are endless lies about evolution, but why so many for such an honest field of 'science?'

Macroevolution is above species to create a new kind, which has never been seen.

Lensky mistakenly claimed macroevolution when his e. coli would suddenly grow on citrate.  But it was microevolution he had observed.

Nebraska man was not a hoax. It was simply wrong, and the paper was retracted (in 1922 or something).

I can't find any article on Lucy being a hoax (as in a deliberate fraud).

Piltdown is well known as an actual hoax. It was reportedly always a bit suspicious, and was ultimately exposed by other scientists.

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

I had said evolutionists are dishonest. 

Earnest Haekle recapitulation theories are still taught as truth today, though his fraud was exposed back in 1860. 

Nope.   Completely false.    In fact, the whole recapitulation story has been used as a cautionary tale in many biology books.   And the new science of evolutionary development clearly shows it isn't like that.    In the 1960, when I was a biology undergraduate, many of my classes included a discussion of Haeckel's failure.    What infuriates many creationists, is modern textbooks use photographs of the same embryos, which shows the same things.  But not Haeckel's recapitulation.

I still get to review textbooks from time to time.   Get me a checkable textbook with publishing date and publisher who does this, and I'll give them a hard time for you.   What do you have?

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Horse evolution, proven false, still appears in museums today. 

Your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise says that the many, many fossil horses in the fossil horse sequence are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."   He's right.   He doesn't believe it's true, but he admits the evidence shows evolution.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

"Whale legs," proven false are for reproduction, but still taught as vestigial.

Two errors there.   First. whales still occasionally have vestigial legs that are useless.   They are internal and don't do anything

Second, "vestigial" does not mean useless.    It means "no longer has the original function.   Darwin noted that many vestigial organs evolved other functions.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Archaeopteryx, faked. 

Nope.   Perfectly good dinosaur fossil.   It did have feathers, and it could fly, but it was only close to the line that led to birds, not a true bird ancestor.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Lucy faked. 

Nope.   A remarkably complete hominid fossil   Want to learn more about it?

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Nebraska man, faked.

Nope.   An error by a dinosaur specialist, fooled by a tooth that was oddly worn to look like a primate tooth.   A primate specialist quickly debunked it as a peccary tooth, albeit worn to look kinda like that of a primate.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Piltdown man, faked.

You got one right.   We don't know who carefully faked the fossil, but we do know evolutionists debunked it.   There's a good reason they spent so much time on falsifying it.    You see, it was backwards according to evolutionary theory.   The theory said that manlike posture and face should come before a manlike cranium.   But "Piltdown Man" had a large cranium and an ape's jaw.    So every breathed a sigh of relief when evolutionists debunked it.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

We get our 'depression genes' from Neanderthal, faked. 

That's not part of evolutionary theory.   How would you even fake something like that?

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

There are endless lies about evolution

As many as there are creationists, it seems.   You've brought up some of the old stories creationists tell, and one new one.    Let me know the details on that one, please.

[Sparks]

44 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Nebraska man was not a hoax. It was simply wrong, and the paper was retracted (in 1922 or something).

When you build two humanoids based on a single tooth (one male and his wife), what do you call it?  If that's not clear enough, they found a single tooth, and no other bones, at all.  The 'mistake' was that the tooth actually belonged to pig!

If you want to call that a 'mistake,' fine. 

Lucy was a hoax because her femur was found about a quarter mile away, and it was that femur that made her a 'transitional fossil.'  What explosion was she in that her femur was found so far away, in a different strata?  Further her hands and feet look human, but they found no feet nor hands.  Her face looks more human by artist rendering, but her face was actually pulverized dust. 

Donald Johanson was just about to run out of grant money, when he found her. 

Another mistake?

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

When you build two humanoids based on a single tooth (one male and his wife), what do you call it?  

They didn't.   You were fooled by the report from a European newspaper, which got all the details wrong and invented a second hominid out of their imagination.    The find was reported as the tooth of a hominid.   Nothing more.

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

If that's not clear enough, they found a single tooth, and no other bones, at all.  The 'mistake' was that the tooth actually belonged to pig!

Nope.   Peccary.   A javelina.    Why did that happen?   Because it turns out that mammals are almost always identifiable by teeth alone.    Unlike other vertebrates, mammals have differentiated teeth molars, canines, incisors, etc.    The dinosaur guy wasn't an expert and so was fooled by a tooth worn oddly to resemble a primate tooth.

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

Lucy was a hoax because her femur was found about a quarter mile away,

No.   That was a creationist invention.    One dishonest creationist edited the words of a scientist to make it so...

"Did Donald Johanson perpetrate a hoax upon us when he discovered Lucy?

This question is of personal importance to me. It's the slander that was passed on to me and many others by Dr. Robert Gentry on television in 1995.

...

In 1981, five years before the questions from creationists, Donald Johanson published a book with Maitland Edey called Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, giving the details of the discovery of Lucy, and the A. afarensis knee joint found over a mile from Lucy's body.

Worse, the knee, found in 1973 before Lucy was even found, has been insignificant since 1975, when the "first family" was found. The "first family" is a collection of parts from 13 Australopithecus afarensis individuals, and it includes at least one knee joint."

https://www.proof-of-evolution.com/donald-johanson.html

Johanson found the knee joint (which he pointed out belonged to a different individual about a mile and a half away, and found over a year earlier than Lucy.   There are now quite a few afarensis fossils and there's no doubt about the bipedalism of this very early hominid.

Do a search on "afarensis skull" and look at the images.   There are a number of skulls now found.    The original reconstructions show the actual fossil with any areas reconstructed.   It's not a mystery what their skulls were like.

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

Donald Johanson was just about to run out of grant money, when he found her. 

Interesting.   Show us that.   Checkable source.

 

 

.

Edited December 18, 2020 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

The best-known member of Australopithecus is Au. afarensis, a species represented by more than 400 fossil specimens from virtually every region of the hominin skeleton. Dated to between about 3.8 and 2.9 mya, 90 percent of the fossils assigned to Au. afarensis derive from Hadar, a site in Ethiopia’s Afar Triangle. Au. afarensis fossils have also been found in Chad, Kenya, and Tanzania. The main fossil sample of this species also comes from Hadar, and the specimens found there include a 40-percent-complete skeleton of an adult female (“Lucy”) and the remains of at least nine adults and four juveniles buried together at the same time (the “First Family”). The animal fossils found in association with Au. afarensis imply a habitat of woodland with patches of grassland.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Australopithecus/Australopithecus-afarensis-and-Au-garhi

[Sparks]

17 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

They didn't.   You were fooled by the report from a European newspaper, which got all the details wrong and invented a second hominid out of their imagination.    The find was reported as the tooth of a hominid.   Nothing more.

I am not the one fooled.  There are artist renderings, artist drawings, news papers around the world hailing this missing link, all based on a single tooth.  It was silly, and it was a lie.  This was around the time of the Scopes Monkey Trial.  Of course in court, when you show up with no evidence, they recognize it's no evidence.  Only the pseudo science believers think Darwinian Evolution has evidence.  That article below is from the New York Times, 1922.

17 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Nope.   Peccary.   A javelina.   

Well, a pig a first, and then maybe about 7 years later it was deemed a Peccary, but who cares?  It was first deemed a missing link, which was so wrong, let 's not forget how wrong it was.  It's wrong enough to be a lie.

17 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No.   That was a creationist invention.    One dishonest creationist edited the words of a scientist to make it so...

So, the man who lied wrote a book, and what?  Lied again?

[Sparks]

17 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

The main fossil sample of this species also comes from Hadar, and the specimens found there include a 40-percent-complete skeleton of an adult female (“Lucy”)

And it was simply an normal ape, which had it's face so badly destroyed you can make up whatever, you want.  In fact, they did.  If you look at the photo I posted above, they literally gave it 'human parts' that didn't exist in the 40%.  Would you admit that those made up hand and feet parts were a lie?

I wonder if Johanson realized he would be famous after this find, or was just looking to keep his work?

[Sparks]

20 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Nope.   Completely false.  

His work still appears in text books and you have effectively admitted it.  It was not photos, it was drawings (he was a liar, but a good artist).  They still teach that bunk.

20 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You got one right.   We don't know who carefully faked the fossil, but we do know evolutionists debunked it.  

Evolutionists also fell for it, and paid a lot of money for it. 

20 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise says that the many, many fossil horses in the fossil horse sequence are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."   He's right.  

He is wrong, and horse evolution was debunked, and museums still have those fake displays up.  Incidentally, creationists believe God's word, not evolution. 

20 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

That's not part of evolutionary theory.   How would you even fake something like that?

Sure it is.  I guess you miss that propaganda article about it.  The point is, they claimed they found "depression genes" in the DNA of Neanderthal, and claimed we inherited them.  When you look behind the scenes and see how sloppy the work was done (no doubt this was all done for grant money), they had found some bones, allegedly of a Neanderthal and extracted broken fragments of DNA, assembled one piece of DNA using all three, then admitted it was greatly cross-contaminated with human DNA, but that didn't stop them from making the claim.

You know, lies.  Anything for a grant.   Even if it it were not about Neanderthal genes, do you believe scientists have discovered our "depression genes?" 

20 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

As many as there are creationists, it seems.   You've brought up some of the old stories creationists tell, and one new one.    Let me know the details on that one, please.

The Smithsonian published an article about whale legs, in which scientist finally grew a brain about the fact that those "legs" were used for sexual reproduction (it's apparently difficult for whales or snakes to line up), so there is no 'sometimes' whale legs.  They figured it out, but it seems lies spread easier.  Whales never walked on land.

[The Barbarian]

6 hours ago, Sparks said:

They didn't.   You were fooled by the report from a European newspaper, which got all the details wrong and invented a second hominid out of their imagination.    The find was reported as the tooth of a hominid.   Nothing more.

 

6 hours ago, Sparks said:

I am not the one fooled.  There are artist renderings, artist drawings, news papers around the world hailing this missing link, all based on a single tooth.

In newspapers, yes.   But not in scientific literature.  You were fooled by imaginative newspaper reports.    The paper itself said nothing about two hominids, nor did it suggest anything else about how it might look or anything else.   They fooled you about it being a "pig" also.

Peccary.   A javelina.   

7 hours ago, Sparks said:

Well, a pig a first, and then maybe about 7 years later it was deemed a Peccary

Nope.   They are quite different and the mammal expert got it at once.

20 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Lucy was a hoax because her femur was found about a quarter mile away,

No.   That was a creationist invention.    One dishonest creationist edited the words of a scientist to make it so...

https://www.proof-of-evolution.com/donald-johanson.html

You were going to show us that Johanson was just about to run out of grant money when he found the hominid.   Can you show us that?   I'd really like to see that.

 

 

,

[The Barbarian]

Nope.   Completely false.    In fact, the whole recapitulation story has been used as a cautionary tale in many biology books.   And the new science of evolutionary development clearly shows it isn't like that.    In the 1960, when I was a biology undergraduate, many of my classes included a discussion of Haeckel's failure.    What infuriates many creationists, is modern textbooks use photographs of the same embryos, which shows the same things.  But not Haeckel's recapitulation.

I still get to review textbooks from time to time.   Get me a checkable textbook with publishing date and publisher who does this, and I'll give them a hard time for you.   What do you have?

6 hours ago, Sparks said:

His work still appears in text books and you have effectively admitted it.  It was not photos, it was drawings (he was a liar, but a good artist).  They still teach that bunk.

As a warning about jumping to conclusions.   As you learned, Haeckel's idea of recapitulation is not taught in any textbook.    You were going to give us some examples of recent biology textbooks that did.    I promise I'll get onto any publisher that actually does that.   Would you mind telling us the book, with date and publisher so that I can do it?    My opinion still has some weight, even retired.   If you don't know of any, and were just taking someone else's word for it, let me know, and I won't ask again.

(Re: Piltdown) You got one right.   We don't know who carefully faked the fossil, but we do know evolutionists debunked it.  

6 hours ago, Sparks said:

Evolutionists also fell for it, and paid a lot of money for it. 

Didn't know that.   Can you link me to a checkable source about the money they paid for it?   

There's a good reason they spent so much time on falsifying it.    You see, it was backwards according to evolutionary theory.   The theory said that manlike posture and face should come before a manlike cranium.   But "Piltdown Man" had a large cranium and an ape's jaw. 

And please show us a link for Johanson about to run out of money when he found A. afarensis.

 

 

,