quote:

---

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID


Also the fact, the simple fact, that if you think that you can find out everything about the past of the earth and human beings by diggin into the earth and looking up remains, you are sadly mistaken. The earth changes, soil and plates shift, 'evidence' dissapears, breaks down. When you dig up 'evidence' as you call it, it only tells a fraction of the tale, an important one, but not the whole story. There is 0 way to know exactly what happened, and since there are no records kept of what exactly happened, you have to make it up in your mind or imagine it, because that is what it is, what you think happened is how the theory ever came about.
But according to science, you are not supposed to make up anything, it is ALL supposed to be on data taken exactly when this or that happened. But when it comes to the evolution of how humans came to be, this is an exception. This is a problem. (Check some of those sources I posted for SOME evidence of the opposite of evolution, if you want more, i'll post more)

Now to say that evolution is a fact, yes. But to say that humans evolved into the creatures we are now according to the evidence available, this cannot be. And furthermore, you don't have the play by play of how the evolution took place when necessary the transitions from apelike species to more humanlike species and why, ultimately, you have bones of the species, but the story of how the and why the transitions were made, is literally made up, the one thing you don't do in science. Problem #1.

---

I don't agree here. The Nylon bug (flavobacterium which feeds on nylon) was genetically compared to other flavobacterium and a frame shift was discovered in their DNA sequence. The mechanism for change is still theory, but something better hasn't come along.


Source for Nylon bug assertation:
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

quote:

---

Problem #2, any person with credibility to break down the theory, is ridiculed and shunned until they do not exist, what are they professionals in their field? Are they professional enough to know when something is wrong? These are questions you need to ask yourself.

A while back, someone said, where are the academics behind evolution being incorrect, and I should have said, do you think I would be involved or say anything about it if there was not?

---

People who have evidence that evolution's mechanism for change is invalid usually have to provide an alternate explaination. This tends to be a Creationist modle based on conjecture and not evidence. It is for this reason that their attempts fail and they earn ridicule.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Siberia

Hybrid, I would like to take on the giant skeleton finding that you address. I am far from being a specialist in evolution, I do have some knowledge about it. However, the point I want to take is something else - you'll soon find out. But first and foremost, I'd like to establish some things, before I posit some questions.

1. We start from the principle that men are capable of lying for their own benefit and distorting facts to their own likings. You yourself believe this, don't you? Well, so do I, though not to the extent you believe. Now, I'm not saying anyone has done so; this is just a fact.
2. We also agree that humans are capable of being mistaken and of fabricating things. Again, not saying anyone has done such, but that it is possible.

Now, onto the questions. I'm curious about this giant humanoid skeleton. My questions:
a) Where were they found?
b) Who found it?
c) Under which circumstances has it been found?
d) Such a discovery, I'd think it's exposed at some museum - the actual bones, not photographs. Where can we go see it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID...
Furthermore, there is tons of evidence (and when I say something like this, challenge me to find these things out for yourself, read them in depth for yourself, and then determine what you think about these things, don't comment if you have only been researching something for like twenty minutes. I have been researching what I do not believe to be true, as in evolution in human species for sometime, how long have you really researched what you think is not true, in depth in books and professionals) that contradicts the theory altogether.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID...
Anatomically modern human bones found from millions of years ago, gigantic human bones, modern humans of men that stood 14 ft tall, perfectly shaped metallic spheres blown out of solid coals. These are not isolated incedents. These things I speak of have been recorded since the founding of our country, but further back in other parts of the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID...
Also the fact, the simple fact, that if you think that you can find out everything from the past by diggin into the earth and looking up remains, you are sadly mistaken. The earth changes, soil and plates shift, 'evidence' dissapears, breaks down. When you dig up 'evidence' as you call it, it only tells a fraction of the tale, an important one, but not the whole story. There is 0 way to know exactly what happened, and since there are no records kept of what exactly happened, you have to make it up in your mind or imagine, because that is what it is, what you think happened is how the theory ever came about.

But according to science, you are not supposed to make up anything, it is ALL supposed to be on data taken exactly when this or that happened. But when it comes to the evolution of how humans came to be, this is an exception. This is a problem. (Check some of those sources I posted for SOME evidence of the opposite of evolution, if you want more, i'll post more)

Now to say that evolution is a fact, yes. But to say that humans evolved into the creatures we are now according to the evidence available, this cannot be. And furthermore, you don't have the play by play of how the evolution took place when necessary the transitions from apelike species to more humanlike species and why, ultimately, you have bones of the species, but the story of how the and why the transitions were made, is literally made up, the one thing you don't do in science. Problem #1.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID...
A while back, someone said, where are the academics behind evolution being incorrect, and I should have said, do you think I would be involved or say anything about it if there was not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID...
Do some of you think that just because you all are skeptics, that anyone who is not will believe anything? That if we think something, that there is no way that it could be justified or that there is no evidence of this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID...
Another problem, there are no, 0 intermediate species that are showing that they are still evolving, in apes or anywhere else in creation. The type of evolution that happened, as in how we humans have become, is just on a level that staggers belief.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID...
These are just a few problems, and it has taken me a while to do this, so lets see how this goes from here, and maybe I'll say more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID

quote:

---

Originally posted by Siberia

Hybrid, I would like to take on the giant skeleton finding that you address. I am far from being a specialist in evolution, I do have some knowledge about it. However, the point I want to take is something else - you'll soon find out. But first and foremost, I'd like to establish some things, before I posit some questions.

1. We start from the principle that men are capable of lying for their own benefit and distorting facts to their own likings. You yourself believe this, don't you? Well, so do I, though not to the extent you believe. Now, I'm not saying anyone has done so; this is just a fact.
2. We also agree that humans are capable of being mistaken and of fabricating things. Again, not saying anyone has done such, but that it is possible.

Now, onto the questions. I'm curious about this giant humanoid skeleton. My questions:
a) Where were they found?
b) Who found it?
c) Under which circumstances has it been found?
d) Such a discovery, I'd think it's exposed at some museum - the actual bones, not photographs. Where can we go see it?

---

You mean skeletons!And if peoplecan lie for there own benefit, who is to say that scientists who have proposed theories are not capable of these things as well. They are human. They are prone to mistakes. They are flawed just as me and you. They can have agendas. You see what works for one half, can work for the other. Its just whether you will accept this as a possibility. As I told you before THESE ARE NOT ISOLATED INCIDENTS REPORTED BY ONE PERSON OR PARTICULAR PERSONS, do some reading. It is not my job to keep posting anything if I don't choose to. How long do you think I have been reading these things?You see, one of those doctors who say that the theory of evolution is rubbish, Author david horn, has a third of his book dedicated to how genetically it is impossible, the evolution that is, and many others have done so. But am I going to sit here and post all of it, when it may not do any goog, uh-uh
a)All over the world, Turkey, Iran, the U.S., South America
b)Construction workers (who have reported to), archaeologists, anthropologist, also found by archaeologist and others.

---

quote:

---

I don't think that the fossil record at the present time reflects the advancement of hominid into human beings according to the theory thus far.

---

quote:

---

From the TO link above:

Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses (like the AIDS virus or HTLV1, which causes a form of leukemia) make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dude

quote:

---

I don't think that the fossil record at the present time reflects the advancement of hominid into human beings according to the theory thus far.

---

Ok. A place to start. Excellent.

Please examine this link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3

It lists and show pictures of several different intermediate hominid-human fossils. The age of these various fossil hominids, verified through multiple methods, shows a very clear relationship between humans and early hominid ancestors, and a obvious morphological progression from hominid to human. But yes, the fossil record is not a perfect record of history. This in no way reduces the relevence of the fossils we do have, however. Especially when you examine the whole body of evidence for evolution.

Even when you examine the fossil record for evidence of transitional fossils for other species there are many to be found. When you look at the fossil record as a whole, it is all but impossible to see anything except strong (not absolute, as no science deals with absolutes) evidence in support of the ToE.

Let me ask your opinion of another type of fossil, the hERV. (human endogenous retrovirus) In my opinion this is the single strongest piece of evidence for common descent.

Here is a brief explanation of endogenous retroviruses:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses

quote:

---

From the TO link above:

Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses (like the AIDS virus or HTLV1, which causes a form of leukemia) make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.

---

Hard molecular evidence with a clear and easy way to falsify it as evidence for common descent.

---

quote:

---

Please quit force feeding the fossil record that I have seen a million times, I still have the paper work and books from my pre-history and human origins class, so please, stop it. I know what it is and what it looks like. I never said that we don't come from some type of ape, you missed the point completely. I think you just were waiting for me to respond so that you could jump on my words and attempt to pick them apart as if you know much more than me. Read it again!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID

quote:

---

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID


Also the fact, the simple fact, that if you think that you can find out everything about the past of the earth and human beings by diggin into the earth and looking up remains, you are sadly mistaken. The earth changes, soil and plates shift, 'evidence' dissapears, breaks down. When you dig up 'evidence' as you call it, it only tells a fraction of the tale, an important one, but not the whole story. There is 0 way to know exactly what happened, and since there are no records kept of what exactly happened, you have to make it up in your mind or imagine it, because that is what it is, what you think happened is how the theory ever came about.
But according to science, you are not supposed to make up anything, it is ALL supposed to be on data taken exactly when this or that happened. But when it comes to the evolution of how humans came to be, this is an exception. This is a problem. (Check some of those sources I posted for SOME evidence of the opposite of evolution, if you want more, i'll post more)

Now to say that evolution is a fact, yes. But to say that humans evolved into the creatures we are now according to the evidence available, this cannot be. And furthermore, you don't have the play by play of how the evolution took place when necessary the transitions from apelike species to more humanlike species and why, ultimately, you have bones of the species, but the story of how the and why the transitions were made, is literally made up, the one thing you don't do in science. Problem #1.

---

I don't agree here. The Nylon bug (flavobacterium which feeds on nylon) was genetically compared to other flavobacterium and a frame shift was discovered in their DNA sequence. The mechanism for change is still theory, but something better hasn't come along.


Source for Nylon bug assertation:
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

quote:

---

Problem #2, any person with credibility to break down the theory, is ridiculed and shunned until they do not exist, what are they professionals in their field? Are they professional enough to know when something is wrong? These are questions you need to ask yourself.

A while back, someone said, where are the academics behind evolution being incorrect, and I should have said, do you think I would be involved or say anything about it if there was not?

---

People who have evidence that evolution's mechanism for change is invalid usually have to provide an alternate explaination. This tends to be a Creationist modle based on conjecture and not evidence. It is for this reason that their attempts fail and they earn ridicule.

---

How humans supposedly evolved from apelike ancestors is based on conjecture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dude

quote:

---

Please quit force feeding the fossil record that I have seen a million times, I still have the paper work and books from my pre-history and human origins class, so please, stop it. I know what it is and what it looks like. I never said that we don't come from some type of ape, you missed the point completely. I think you just were waiting for me to respond so that you could jump on my words and attempt to pick them apart as if you know much more than me. Read it again!

---

You stated that the fossil record doesn't show a clear progression from hominid to human. If thats not what you meant, then please clarify.

If you want to insist on the "millions of years for it to happen" line, then I can only point out that ToE states no such thing. No portion of the theory sets a time for such changes to occur, and in fact we have seen speciation events in macro species (the london subway mosquito, for example) occur in less than 100 years.

The idea that evolution only occurs over geological time spans is false. I don't know where you got that tidbit from, but it is what most of us here would refer to as a "straw-man". A misrepresentation of a position that is easier to argue against than the actual position.

So, one more time just to be clear: The ToE does not set times for evolutionary events to occur. Any claim that it does is false.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeeMack

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID...
Furthermore, there is tons of evidence (and when I say something like this, challenge me to find these things out for yourself, read them in depth for yourself, and then determine what you think about these things, don't comment if you have only been researching something for like twenty minutes. I have been researching what I do not believe to be true, as in evolution in human species for sometime, how long have you really researched what you think is not true, in depth in books and professionals) that contradicts the theory altogether.

---

"Tons of evidence" isn't good enough for this discussion. In the opening post there were guidelines presented to help keep this discussion productive and on track. One of those guidelines was, "3. No unevidenced claims. You must provide a source for all claims of fact." It would be helpful if you would give us summaries of the particular contradictions you refer to, as well as pointers to some web links, book titles, research projects, and quotes that might back up these assertions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID...
Anatomically modern human bones found from millions of years ago, gigantic human bones, modern humans of men that stood 14 ft tall, perfectly shaped metallic spheres blown out of solid coals. These are not isolated incedents. These things I speak of have been recorded since the founding of our country, but further back in other parts of the world.

---

I'm intrigued by these "perfectly shaped metallic spheres blown out of solid coals." Can you provide a little more in the way of details about these?

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID...
Also the fact, the simple fact, that if you think that you can find out everything from the past by diggin into the earth and looking up remains, you are sadly mistaken. The earth changes, soil and plates shift, 'evidence' dissapears, breaks down. When you dig up 'evidence' as you call it, it only tells a fraction of the tale, an important one, but not the whole story. There is 0 way to know exactly what happened, and since there are no records kept of what exactly happened, you have to make it up in your mind or imagine, because that is what it is, what you think happened is how the theory ever came about.

But according to science, you are not supposed to make up anything, it is ALL supposed to be on data taken exactly when this or that happened. But when it comes to the evolution of how humans came to be, this is an exception. This is a problem. (Check some of those sources I posted for SOME evidence of the opposite of evolution, if you want more, i'll post more)

Now to say that evolution is a fact, yes. But to say that humans evolved into the creatures we are now according to the evidence available, this cannot be. And furthermore, you don't have the play by play of how the evolution took place when necessary the transitions from apelike species to more humanlike species and why, ultimately, you have bones of the species, but the story of how the and why the transitions were made, is literally made up, the one thing you don't do in science. Problem #1.

---

Neither skeptics nor scientists are suggesting that everything is known about evolution, or about any scientific endeavor for that matter. Science doesn't ever demand that a well developed theory requires "data taken exactly when this or that happened." What we have is a dotted line, and there are certainly parts of that line that have yet to be filled in. Using the data that is available and developing sensible possibilities regarding those missing sections is how a theory is formed. There is a rational method applied to "guessing" how to fill in the blanks. A theory isn't just built from someone's wild imagination, and is by no means "literally made up."

If the dotted line is moving in a particular direction, then there are blank spaces, then the line appears again and continues to move in the same direction, it is most likely that the missing pieces create a continuation of that same line. It is well understood by scientists that more evidence may come along showing the unknown parts of that line aren't straight or direct. At that point the new evidence gets thrown into the mix, and the theory gets modified to more accurately reflect the additional data.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID...
A while back, someone said, where are the academics behind evolution being incorrect, and I should have said, do you think I would be involved or say anything about it if there was not?

---

Actually, if you are making the assertion that the theory of evolution as we currently know it is incorrect, when asked about the academics behind evolution being incorrect, you should have answered the question.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID...
Do some of you think that just because you all are skeptics, that anyone who is not will believe anything? That if we think something, that there is no way that it could be justified or that there is no evidence of this?

---

Absolutely nobody here believes that, no.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID...
Another problem, there are no, 0 intermediate species that are showing that they are still evolving, in apes or anywhere else in creation. The type of evolution that happened, as in how we humans have become, is just on a level that staggers belief.

---

Evolution might be better understood once we cast aside that mistaken belief. The job of evolution is never "done." If a form of life hasn't gone extinct it just a step along the way in the evolutionary process. All species currently alive are the intermediate species.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID...
These are just a few problems, and it has taken me a while to do this, so lets see how this goes from here, and maybe I'll say more.

---

Please do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID

quote:

---

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID


Also the fact, the simple fact, that if you think that you can find out everything about the past of the earth and human beings by diggin into the earth and looking up remains, you are sadly mistaken. The earth changes, soil and plates shift, 'evidence' dissapears, breaks down. When you dig up 'evidence' as you call it, it only tells a fraction of the tale, an important one, but not the whole story. There is 0 way to know exactly what happened, and since there are no records kept of what exactly happened, you have to make it up in your mind or imagine it, because that is what it is, what you think happened is how the theory ever came about.
But according to science, you are not supposed to make up anything, it is ALL supposed to be on data taken exactly when this or that happened. But when it comes to the evolution of how humans came to be, this is an exception. This is a problem. (Check some of those sources I posted for SOME evidence of the opposite of evolution, if you want more, i'll post more)

Now to say that evolution is a fact, yes. But to say that humans evolved into the creatures we are now according to the evidence available, this cannot be. And furthermore, you don't have the play by play of how the evolution took place when necessary the transitions from apelike species to more humanlike species and why, ultimately, you have bones of the species, but the story of how the and why the transitions were made, is literally made up, the one thing you don't do in science. Problem #1.

---

I don't agree here. The Nylon bug (flavobacterium which feeds on nylon) was genetically compared to other flavobacterium and a frame shift was discovered in their DNA sequence. The mechanism for change is still theory, but something better hasn't come along.


Source for Nylon bug assertation:
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

quote:

---

Problem #2, any person with credibility to break down the theory, is ridiculed and shunned until they do not exist, what are they professionals in their field? Are they professional enough to know when something is wrong? These are questions you need to ask yourself.

A while back, someone said, where are the academics behind evolution being incorrect, and I should have said, do you think I would be involved or say anything about it if there was not?

---

People who have evidence that evolution's mechanism for change is invalid usually have to provide an alternate explaination. This tends to be a Creationist modle based on conjecture and not evidence. It is for this reason that their attempts fail and they earn ridicule.

---

How humans supposedly evolved from apelike ancestors is based on conjecture.

---

Nope. It's based on actual observation of living organisms such as the Nylon bug and extrapolated into the past.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID

quote:

---

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID

quote:

---

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID


Also the fact, the simple fact, that if you think that you can find out everything about the past of the earth and human beings by diggin into the earth and looking up remains, you are sadly mistaken. The earth changes, soil and plates shift, 'evidence' dissapears, breaks down. When you dig up 'evidence' as you call it, it only tells a fraction of the tale, an important one, but not the whole story. There is 0 way to know exactly what happened, and since there are no records kept of what exactly happened, you have to make it up in your mind or imagine it, because that is what it is, what you think happened is how the theory ever came about.
But according to science, you are not supposed to make up anything, it is ALL supposed to be on data taken exactly when this or that happened. But when it comes to the evolution of how humans came to be, this is an exception. This is a problem. (Check some of those sources I posted for SOME evidence of the opposite of evolution, if you want more, i'll post more)

Now to say that evolution is a fact, yes. But to say that humans evolved into the creatures we are now according to the evidence available, this cannot be. And furthermore, you don't have the play by play of how the evolution took place when necessary the transitions from apelike species to more humanlike species and why, ultimately, you have bones of the species, but the story of how the and why the transitions were made, is literally made up, the one thing you don't do in science. Problem #1.

---

I don't agree here. The Nylon bug (flavobacterium which feeds on nylon) was genetically compared to other flavobacterium and a frame shift was discovered in their DNA sequence. The mechanism for change is still theory, but something better hasn't come along.


Source for Nylon bug assertation:
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

quote:

---

Problem #2, any person with credibility to break down the theory, is ridiculed and shunned until they do not exist, what are they professionals in their field? Are they professional enough to know when something is wrong? These are questions you need to ask yourself.

A while back, someone said, where are the academics behind evolution being incorrect, and I should have said, do you think I would be involved or say anything about it if there was not?

---

People who have evidence that evolution's mechanism for change is invalid usually have to provide an alternate explaination. This tends to be a Creationist modle based on conjecture and not evidence. It is for this reason that their attempts fail and they earn ridicule.

---

How humans supposedly evolved from apelike ancestors is based on conjecture.

---

Nope. It's based on actual observation of living organisms such as the Nylon bug and extrapolated into the past.

---

This is a good point, but is not what I am talking about directly though. And if you don't know what that is at this point, I am sorry for you.

---