[_ Old Earth _] The Junk-Science pillars used to prop up Darwinism

[BobRyan]

Hint the reason for mentiong people-groups is that the atheist darwinis claim is that entire SPECIES came up with contradictory sets of ribs and vertebrae "as direct descendants" -- not simply "a few individuals within a group".

"There is an interesting discrepancy in the skeletal development of this [horse] series: the anatomy of the various models does not compare.

"For example, the rib court varies back and forth from 15 to 19:

Eohippus had 18 pairs of ribs;

Orohippus had only 15 pairs;

then Pliohippus jumped to 19;

Equus scoff! is back to 18.

"Also, the lumbers of the backbone vary back and forth from 6 to 8. Therefore, many eminent scientists disagree on the theoretical chain of fossil horses." â€â€Howard Path, Blind Faith (1990), p. 119.

Even though the reconstructed fossil is made up of both Neanderthal and human bones, Sawyer doesn't believe that modern humans could have evolved from Neanderthals based on the pelvic and torso discrepancies between the two species.

Evolutionary side road

"There is no way that modern humans, I believe, could have evolved from a species like Neanderthal," Sawyer said. "They're certainly a cousin - they're human - but they're one of those strange little offshoots."

http://www.livescience.com/history/0503 ... ction.html

How "serious" they take the skeletal contradictions in their storytelling sequences depends on which species and which stories are being told.

See -- what you pretend you don't know, can hurt you, Barbarian because we all see you "pretending" to equivocate between individual abnormalities for humans vs entire SPECIES in the fossil record that you 'had hoped" to link to horses.

 

[Barbarian]

The human skeleton is always defined as having 12 pairs of ribs. Period.

Nope. As you learned, normal humans vary in the precise number. Twelve is the most common.

trying to equivocate is silly since horses themselves can have incidental variations at minor percentage levels and STILL give birth to NORMAL horses NOT a "new species".

You lose there, too. Arabians, for example, have a different number of ribs, and this breeds true in Arabians. So obviously, using number of ribs to differentiate horses by species is foolish.

Since, in the series of horses I showed you, you were unable to find any differences between transitionals greater then is found in many species today, you've lost the challenge. Feel free to go back and try again any time. The answer will be the same.

What you don't know CAN hurt Barbarian

What you didn't know, was that the number of ribs varies even within a mammalian species. So it's silly to suggest that a change in rib number means anything in a phylogeny.

 

[BobRyan]

Nope as you already learned the skelatal differences ALREADY ruled out predicessor successor sequences in human speculative story-telling and as we can see from the fraudulent "never happened in nature horse series" - it is debunked there as well.

Also as you learned a long time ago on this thread "stories easy enough to tell" about "how one thing came from another" are "NOT SCIENCE" -- your arguments die even in the hands of the atheist darwinist masters they claim to serve.

As you learned with the fraudulent horse series it was fully debunked DECADES before it was ever pulled from the Atheist Darwinist propagandizing machinery. Truly the "religionists" could not resist the power of that hoax.

And as you will learn in the next HOAX to be reviewed -- Neanderthal, Piltdown, Nebraska man and Ernst' Haecklse "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" the junk-science methods that infect atheist darwinism EXPOSE it time after time as a very thinly veiled religionist argument wrapped in junk-science as it's marketing campaign.

Obviously.

Bob