rmills said:
<snip>
Once again, the biology books stacked everywhere that promote evolution may teach science but the very foundations of this evolution belief are corrupt when I can open any of these “science books†and read countless debunked and antiquated arguments from liars, fabricators of theory and statements of “facts†based on such fabrications.
Porcine offal.
The evidence is clear and can be tested. It has been tested repeatedly. Those 'liars' you speak of are some of the most scientifically and intellectually rigorous men and women of the past century. Ad homenim arguments get you no where.
It infuriates me that I can walk into any school and pull a “science†book off the teacher’s desk that has a drawing of 8 identical fetuses that eventually turn into 8 different animals, including the human. That fabrication alone has changed the course of people’s lives.
Since we're morphologically similar to all other mammals it stands to reason. Can you show me pictures of gestating fetuses of those same 8 species and point out the stark differences that you imply here?
Lee Strobel says in his book, “The Case for a Creatorâ€Â, that this picture was one of three significant factors in his road to head first Atheism. He was not told in school that this picture was refuted almost 100 years earlier by real scientists who put that “science†to the test.
Try and make grammatical sense.
Entire drawings of the “missing link†based on a knee cap? A tooth? A jaw bone? How many of those “science books†state those facts? How many folks know that charging a flask full of stuff with electricity does not in even small ways represent the spontaneous generation of life in a primordial atmosphere?
As to your 4th and 5th questions:
4: None, modern reconstructions of ancestral homonids are based on more rigorous evidence these days. Either way this is not an attack on the science of evolution but on archeologists.
5: Invalid question. A simulation of the atmosphere of earth at a time when life could be supported is a valid representation of the generation of AMINO ACIDS. It follows logically that many simple proteins could be formed by such compounds that would make the eventual building blocks of life, but this is an indirect attack. Furthermore, it completely ignores evolution.
What of the thousands of variables that are meticulously balanced to make life sustainable in our atmosphere, our gravity, our distance from the sun, our distance from the moon, our degree of rotational axis, our DNA complexity, our speech, our vast difference in DNA between apes and humans, our vast similarities in DNA with mice, our inability to find the Whale’s ancestors, our inability to prove that mutations have ever been beneficial to any species, and on and on…
It's not what keeps it in balance, the Earth is a system, like every other planet in our solar system and in the universe. The fact that that system is correct for the formation of life is the only reason we can make any assessment in the first place. Gravity is based on the mass of the planet, so that's a virtual constant. Our atmosphere is a billions of years old system that can be shown to have a very very different past. A past which is based on several other variables.
The moon is not at a fixed distance, it is receding by about 5/4 inches every year. The fact that we have a single moon controls our rotational axis.
We know why we are related to mice, we know what animals preceded the Whales, and mutations CAN have beneficial consequences. The fact that you cannot see that is no skin off of my nose.
... and I might just as well go ahead and add my favorite. How come we have not seen that pinnacle of Evolution known as the fruit fly turn into a bat or a even a grasshopper? Lord knows it should have happened there first! Scientists have had ample opportunity to provide a fruit fly with a tail, a sonar guidance system, a language, hot pink hair, anything!!! They have however managed to provide a fly that can withstand colder temperatures. So I guess that means macro evolution always worked?
I can't even tell what your third sentense even means, no less respond to what it says, if it indeed says anything at all.
Well let's see you seem to be under the impression that macroevolution = "I had a batboy baby!!!!"
This impression is wrong. Go actually learn what macroevolution is, your inability to understand the basic concepts of evolution makes your argument here invalid.
Good old Drosophila melanogaster has not turned one stone of evolution since the 1913 pioneering studies of Sturtevant, but for some funny reason, there have been more books written on the poor fly than Carter has pills!
The reason for that is quite simple, it's only got 4 chromosomes. It's simplicity means we can conduct genetic experiments on it with a very small number of variables. Note, the extreme dearth of studies into some species of Fern, whose chromosomes measure in the dozens.
<snip quote>
Ahh, that’s how we solve the problem! Eureka! If we can’t observe the fly taking on a new identity, maybe we will just genetically engineer one! This of course far passes proving evolution, rather it goes straight to grasping for straws! This is scientific lunacy! If we cannot prove that all fetuses look the same when they are in early development stages, we will just make that little unimportant fact up. If we cannot prove that flies evolve into whatever, we will genetically engineer one! But wait! There’s even more! Yippie! Look!
More awful offal.
They just showed you that what macroevolution requires for species to speciate does in fact cause them to speciate. It's easily shown that such changes can happen. They just proved that those changes lead to speciation.
<snip quote>
WOW!!! I am just totally convinced now! Chung-I Wu has just effectively changed my life! This is an insult to my intelligence! An outright joke pointed at the Discovery Channel watching impressionable minds of the world so that “science†can settle this issue once and for all. I’m sure that it will be in text books really soon? Oh, it already is! But for some reason, they cant get rid of the pictures of Darwin’s only drawing in his book, you know, the one with the big family tree of where we all came from?
How can you be insulted on a matter that does not pertain to you?
As for the family tree, it's more historical than anything else. The same way physics text books, specifically mechanics, have pictures from 18th century woodcuts of the ptolemaic cosmos.
Once again, how can evolution be correct when the very foundations required for evolution to work are fabrications, fables, lies, impossibilities, improbabilities, and outright guesses labeled scientific observed fact?
Another invalid question, probably rhetorical anyway. Nonetheless, evolution is NOT based on fabrications, etc. It's based on evidence. The quotes you posted show fairly well that macroevolution CAN happen because of small genetic changes that could happen naturally by themselves.
What is my purpose in this argument?
To illustrate your utter lack of scientific knowledge.
[quote:6b96a]Summary:
Mills: Evolution is wrong, because it predicts we came from goo.
False for two reasons. False because evolution predicts that over time species split because of environmental isolation. Note how the meanings of and use of things we call words in the previous sentence makes the meaning of that sentence distinct from your previous statement.
Almost everyone else: No, it makes no predictions about how life started
The biological community disagrees.
Mills: It has to! I say it does.
Almost everyone else: Sorry, it doesn't. I only shows how living things evolve, not how life started.
Mills: I don't care. It has to say how life started!
(repeat as necessary)
[/quote:6b96a]
Wonderful, you acknowledge your status as a fallacious troll. You must be quite blissful.
<snip quote from someone who knows approximately as much about evolution>
It seems to me that "Almost everyone else" is becoming the primary argument from evolutionists, both in text books and in internet land. This is a continuous thread of absolute denial on behalf of the evolutionist for what is required before evolution can even take place. As long as you fail to recognize that the very foundations of both what “almost everyone else†believes and what “text books†teach are false, then you have proven yourselves to be no greater than the above mentioned scientist who forces his theory by genetic manipulation, and proposing it as fact for Macro-Evolution.
You ought to go into newspaper comics, you're wonderful at illustrating stupidity. You could write ziggy.
I've already explained the purpose of the experiments concerning fruit flies above, so by this time you've probably started replying. Or have gone to pet your signed picture of Kent Hovind.
Good going keebs, you have begun to call into question my "smarts". This is like playing with 3 year olds. I am done with you.
: Obviously they are not random. Sorry you didn't catch the sarcasm. Attractant theory dont work in RNA/DNA man, hate to tell ya. It just all fell together like perfect, eventually turning out an Encyclopedia Britanica sized blue print. 
:D