Bigfoot News
Bigfoot Evidence
Bigfoot Evidence
RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 



Ketchum paper published in Russia

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  SciaticPain on Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:51 pm

face palm.
Fine have it your way- evolution and ID side by side- cozy as could be. I'm done here.

SciaticPain

Posts : 11
Join date : 2012-11-25

View user profile http://antediluviansalad.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  Green911 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 2:31 am

SciaticPain wrote:
Fine have it your way- evolution and ID side by side- cozy as could be. I'm done here.

Why can't there be both? What if that is the way it was meant to be, or planned? Anything is possible.

elephant
avatar
Green911

Posts : 140
Join date : 2012-08-17
Age : 49
Location : Sacramento, CA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  Tzieth on Wed Nov 28, 2012 1:28 pm

BurdenOfProof wrote:You are trying to fill gaps with some devine intervention with absolutely zero evidence for the claim.

We understand the tree of life from the first cells to the current diversity of life on earth today. No intervention required.

A popular tactic among Intelligent Design proponants is to explain what they do not understand by <insert god here>.

Science does not know everything and does not claim to know everything but that does not mean "therefore god did it".

How Evolution works? lol It doesn't work, Micro-evolution works and is proven. Macro-Evolution is not. There is no evidence at all, just speculation. How is this any different from Religion? Take Homo Erectus... And Homo Erectus made Neanderthal, Homo Helidleberg, Homo Sapiens. This is still only Microevolution. All of these species have the same genetic material as H. Erectus did. They merely evolved to their environments. There is no record of an Australopithecine becoming a Homo. Like that other articale I posted went on to state. Darwinists like to use Chimps to make their case and how we share 98% of our DNA.. How we are 98% the same. But they do not cover the obvious... If this is only 98%, then what in the Hell is making this HUGE difference? DNA is not what makes us "US". It is the Box of tools and material that we are allowed for our blueprint and it is all we get. DNA is the barrel, and Genes are the monkeys inside the barrel. If your barrel is short a few monkeys, then you had better buy a new barrel of monkeys because this is all you get from this barrel.

The exception is Two Genus of the same order cross breeding. It can happen,(Theoretically) but this is where the sterile thing comes into play, and such offspring might not survive into adulthood. Even same genus animals one opposite spectrum's of the Genus's subgenus species such as Lions and Tigers are prevented from making a new separate species. A male Lion and a female Tiger will create a Liger. A male Tiger and female Lion will create a Tigron. Both are or rather would be two unique species unto themselves, however both are sterile. Lions and Tigers are in the same Genus (Panthera), but are of different subgenus. (leo and Tigaris). "Subgenus" used to pretty much be the same thing as species, but this is now being debated as genetic testing is changing things. Where every Big-Cat used to have a subgues to it's self, they are now finding, that many should be grouped. They are trying to put Leopards in subgenus Tigris as genetic testing confirmed they have a common ancestor, where Cheetahs should be under leo as they and lions have a common ancestor.

The theoretical part are inter-genus breeding. Chimps and Humans. On paper it looks possible, but has never been confirmed to have been done and doing so would be illegal. This was debated during the Oliver craze. Oliver had one more chromosome than a human and one less than a chimp, so he was assumed to have been a "Humanzee"



Oliver turned out to simply be a Chimp with a genetic mutation.. He died a few months ago in a Texas Primate Refuge. But at the time he opened up serious discussion world wide of Chimp/Human hybrids and they came to the conclusion that it was possible, but unethical and that such offspring, would probably die early. But this is another case of microevolution not allowing macro. The ONLY way to create a new Genus out of an existing one would be genetic engineering, which is still intelligent design be it human or otherwise.
avatar
Tzieth

Posts : 478
Join date : 2012-08-27
Age : 43
Location : Vancouver, Washington

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  CMcMillan on Wed Nov 28, 2012 1:43 pm

Thanks TZ

This is why I think ID and Micro-Evolution can run together

Something (The Intelligence) helped "jump start" Micro-Evolution on the earth.
Then did this Intelligence come around and keep manipulating certain things to see what would happen did they keep giving nudges to the process.

The Movie Prometheus is ok but again Mission to Mars seemed to me the better of the process i was thinking about.

avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  BurdenOfProof on Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:30 pm

micro evolution + time = macro evolution

easy.
avatar
BurdenOfProof

Posts : 263
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  CMcMillan on Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:35 pm

So Burden
What made Humans turn from Hunter Gathers to Farmers?
All sudden 15,000 years ago we went from Hunter Gathering to Farming planting and all that.
What caused this it wasn't evolution what was it where did that leap come from.
Now take in account that as far as we can tell Big foot is still a Hunter Gather.
And according to the DNA it was split 15,000 years ago
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  BurdenOfProof on Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:50 pm

Erm what?

The homo sapiens of 15,000 years ago were pretty much identical to how we are now (Modern humans). Modern Humans came along around 100,000 years ago I believe.

You also seem to be assuming that there was some "split" and from that is where modern humans came. Ketchums claims are not that there is a "split" but a seperate hybrid species emerged from the already existing humans.
avatar
BurdenOfProof

Posts : 263
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  CMcMillan on Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:01 pm

As early as 12,000 years ago, humans began to practice sedentary agriculture, domesticating plants and animals which allowed for the growth of civilization.
Until c. 10,000 years ago, humans lived as hunter-gatherers. They generally lived in small nomadic groups known as band societies. The advent of agriculture prompted the Neolithic Revolution, when access to food surplus led to the formation of permanent human settlements, the domestication of animals and the use of metal tools for the first time in history. Agriculture encouraged trade and cooperation, and led to complex society. Because of the significance of this date for human society, it is the epoch of the Holocene calendar or Human Era.

Ok so what made us all sudden 12,000 years ago go from Hunter Gathers into Farming?

And sorry I meant to say the Hybrid offshoot happened 15,000 years ago.
So would love to hear your version of this.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  BurdenOfProof on Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:11 pm

CMcMillan wrote:
Ok so what made us all sudden 12,000 years ago go from Hunter Gathers into Farming?

And sorry I meant to say the Hybrid offshoot happened 15,000 years ago.
So would love to hear your version of this.

Why we went from hunter gatherers to farmers is a completely different topic. Nothing to do with hybrids/angels/ID or any of that nonsense. You might aswell ask why do we live differently now to 100 years ago?

My version of what? As far as we know in science there is no hybridization in the last 15,000 years. Even if say a group of humans got isolated and started to change slightly, 15000 years is nowhere near enough time for a completely new species to emerge. They may get a bit smaller or a bit stronger but thats about it, they would still be able to breed with modern humans.

avatar
BurdenOfProof

Posts : 263
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  CMcMillan on Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:17 pm

Actually in the one theory of Bigfoot being a Hybrid Human created by the "alien/gods" came to earth and set up our civilization.
Taught us how to farm and create societies and created Bigfoots to be the brute labor force.
So it actually does fall into the discussion
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  BurdenOfProof on Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:21 pm

CMcMillan wrote:Actually in the one theory of Bigfoot being a Hybrid Human created by the "alien/gods" came to earth and set up our civilization.
Taught us how to farm and create societies and created Bigfoots to be the brute labor force.
So it actually does fall into the discussion

Are you trolling me? :S
avatar
BurdenOfProof

Posts : 263
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  CMcMillan on Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:57 pm

Amazing I haven't said your Trolling yet you accuse me of when I point out that it is part of the current discussion?
Really?
Guess you can't be mature can you.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  Tzieth on Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:58 pm

BurdenOfProof wrote:micro evolution + time = macro evolution

easy.

LOL I could use your S/N here Burden lol. "Burden of Proof" Not only is there no proof of Macro, but rules of micro do not allow it. In order for Macro to work, DNA strands must change. A mutation must completely rewrite the strand... This DOES happen. However, when it does, microevolution kicks in. That strand is instantly destroyed or repaired, or the whole dies (Cancer is such an example). In fact, the proof or rather evidence of intelligent design is found in micro-evolution. It's like an anti-virus program in a way. Organisms are born with a preset number of dominant,recessive, or dormant genes. These genes can turn one species to another. THEY CANNOT turn one genus to another and sure as hell can't turn one family to another. But when an oddity mutation does occur that changes the strand of DNA deep inside a chromosome, deep inside the nucleus of a cell (Of which there are Billions like it in your body) it is instantly attacked, repaired or just killed off. In the event this mutation could not be repaired and succeeds in changing the cell, the whole organism dies. (Cancer) Now you have genetic material that does not agree with the true genetic material and the end result is the culling the whole organism. In fact, if you found the actual "Cure for cancer" then you also found immortality. If Cancer cells were allowed to spread without rejection from the other cells, you would never die of natural causes. cancer cells do not die, they just keep multiplying which is what kills you in the end. Stop the multiplying and you would become sterile, however, you would never grow old and never die. But microevolution, prevents this just as it does macroevolution.

The fruit fly experiment was proof that time does not permit macro. Time=Extinction. They took on every variant they could,mutated multiple times and eventually became sterile and died. But they died as fruitflies
avatar
Tzieth

Posts : 478
Join date : 2012-08-27
Age : 43
Location : Vancouver, Washington

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  SciaticPain on Wed Nov 28, 2012 6:50 pm

Macroevolution in fruit flies
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.abstract

Macroevolution observed in the lab. Testable, verifiable, repeatable proof.

The whole fruit fly argument Tz keeps bringing up is bogus, because the fruit flies are not in a natural setting where any kind of selective pressure was enforced. Secondly Drosophilia has been implicated in a number of speciation events see link below. The E. coli experiment in above example was a test for the ability of E. coli to evolve the ability to digest citrate. Read it.

Here is a link to a list of observed speciation events.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Evolution is the only theory that ties together the synthesis of knowledge in paleontology, microbiology, ecology, genetics, anatomy and biology. Although science is always squabblling over the details of how certain things in life history occurred, what is not at argument among biologists is that evolution caused them.

To get around the problem, creationists often try to separate evolution into two types, micro-evolution and macro-evolution. They argue that micro-evolution can make minor changes, but can¹t build new structures or make other major changes to organisms. Although “the attempt to differentiate between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization” (according to Wikipedia), creationists often claim that a chain of small micro-evolutionary steps can¹t add up to a macro-evolutionary step.

Examples of evolution abound- but where is the creationist/ID/unicorn/alien intervention proof? Nada, zilch, zero.

I can tell you I believe it was magic smurfs that sowed the seeds for life on planet earth. Later on Papa smurf came by and told paleolithic people to throw some seeds in the ground. You say aliens but I say it was Papa smurf. The point is neither of us can prove our idea- and we don't need to when simpler explanations abound.

Did alien ants need to intervene on behalf of leaf-cutter ants and tell them how to grow fungus and farm it from chopped up leaves? no and aliens did not need to teach us how to farm.

When we need to constantly put forth some type of god/ID/alien helper it really diminishes the accomplishments of our own species and our forefathers.

I'm sure Tz and McMillian will just ignore my arguments and find some semantic argument around them but when facts become insults we are all in trouble.

Oh yeah although I read about the founder of ID you guys still have not got back to me about the recurrent laryngeal nerve!?!

SciaticPain

Posts : 11
Join date : 2012-11-25

View user profile http://antediluviansalad.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  BurdenOfProof on Wed Nov 28, 2012 6:56 pm

CMcMillan wrote:Amazing I haven't said your Trolling yet you accuse me of when I point out that it is part of the current discussion?
Really?
Guess you can't be mature can you.

Sorry I just find it hard for someone to believe what you are saying. But if you actually do believe that and you are not trolling me then thats fine you can believe what ever you want:)
avatar
BurdenOfProof

Posts : 263
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  CMcMillan on Wed Nov 28, 2012 7:50 pm

SciaticPain wrote:Macroevolution in fruit flies
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.abstract

Macroevolution observed in the lab. Testable, verifiable, repeatable proof.

The whole fruit fly argument Tz keeps bringing up is bogus, because the fruit flies are not in a natural setting where any kind of selective pressure was enforced. Secondly Drosophilia has been implicated in a number of speciation events see link below. The E. coli experiment in above example was a test for the ability of E. coli to evolve the ability to digest citrate. Read it.

Here is a link to a list of observed speciation events.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Evolution is the only theory that ties together the synthesis of knowledge in paleontology, microbiology, ecology, genetics, anatomy and biology. Although science is always squabblling over the details of how certain things in life history occurred, what is not at argument among biologists is that evolution caused them.

To get around the problem, creationists often try to separate evolution into two types, micro-evolution and macro-evolution. They argue that micro-evolution can make minor changes, but can¹t build new structures or make other major changes to organisms. Although “the attempt to differentiate between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization” (according to Wikipedia), creationists often claim that a chain of small micro-evolutionary steps can¹t add up to a macro-evolutionary step.

Examples of evolution abound- but where is the creationist/ID/unicorn/alien intervention proof? Nada, zilch, zero.

I can tell you I believe it was magic smurfs that sowed the seeds for life on planet earth. Later on Papa smurf came by and told paleolithic people to throw some seeds in the ground. You say aliens but I say it was Papa smurf. The point is neither of us can prove our idea- and we don't need to when simpler explanations abound.

Did alien ants need to intervene on behalf of leaf-cutter ants and tell them how to grow fungus and farm it from chopped up leaves? no and aliens did not need to teach us how to farm.

When we need to constantly put forth some type of god/ID/alien helper it really diminishes the accomplishments of our own species and our forefathers.

I'm sure Tz and McMillian will just ignore my arguments and find some semantic argument around them but when facts become insults we are all in trouble.

Oh yeah although I read about the founder of ID you guys still have not got back to me about the recurrent laryngeal nerve!?!

Blondie placed this in the other thread

I have a question?

I just typed out a long answer about the Laryngeal Nerve and went to quote the comment and it is gone.
Am I in the wrong topic? I've looked for it in Bigfoot unmoderated section and the General section.

If anyone's interested here's the article and link.

Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Is Not Evidence of Poor Design
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. http://www.icr.org/article/5512/

I don't understand why you have to specifically Call TZ or Myself out. You are acting like a Spoiled child who doesn't get his or her way when someone disagrees with you or has a different theory of the same evidence.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  SciaticPain on Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:28 pm

Umm that article by Jerry Bergman is from a creationist research institute so the bias speaks for itself...anyways this guy Jerry just puts up a smokescreen of semantics and doubletalk and does nothing to address the issue of why its not hard to see that the path this nerve takes is unnecessarily complex one, (He even argues that other nerves take long, illogical routes- duh that's the point!) especially in long necked critters like giraffes. Anyways yet to see a coherent argument against this failed design.



As far as me calling you guys out isn't that what you did to me here

If you read what TZ linked He says that the ID could have just been the JUMP Start to creation of Life.

Anyways sorry if I offended you with facts, references and links to actual published accounts of macroevolution. Let it be known that I have not once called anyone on here a spoiled brat or any other name- that's on you. You and TZ both got to look at your own level of disrespect, semantic flipfloppery, and genuine ignorance of data.

If you feel like you are being attacked it is probably due to the congnitive dissonance of a worldview incompatible with reality. And again, fine to have all these pet theories of AI/DI/ID or whatever- but when you come attacking evolution just cuz neither of you don't understand it then I gots to stand up for it- because the medieval ages were called the dark ages for good reason- and yeah I will rally against ID/creationist/alien dribble any chance I get. Twisted Evil

And its not so much that your view differs from mine....it differs from all of modern biologists. People who spend more time on this subject than me or you. cyclops



SciaticPain

Posts : 11
Join date : 2012-11-25

View user profile http://antediluviansalad.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  CMcMillan on Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:40 pm

I am not being disrespectful.
You are asking questions I am answering.
You don't have to ask questions or even read these threads if you don't Feel they are what you like your so called Pseudo Science.

Science is always changing the goal post especially evolution.
You do recall that At one time they believed that Neanderthal and Modern Homospians never interbread or even were around at the same time?
Just because you don't accept t he view we see or others doesn't mean its not possible or true either.

If you can't have a discussion about this with out calling us Nuts or crazy then don't post.
The topic was brought up for discussion.
We present our ideas and our view.

As far as Bias?
Well wouldn't any of your Information be shown as Bias as well?
See its from a point of view.
New things are always treated by the current knowledge as fringe or out of the ordinary till it becomes fact.

I have not attacked Evolution
I have said that Evolution and ID can go hand in hand.
Its not only my view but others as well.

But you wouldn't care to read or even be intrested because it will question the Norm that you are use too.

You and Burden will never accept any evidence of Bigfoot unless its in a zoo and you can see it for your own eyes. So i don't really understand why your in these kinds of forums.


As far as your Picture of the nerve.
How do we know the nerve of a Dinosaur? Please show me where we have a full fleshed out body of an actual dinosaur?
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  DPinkerton on Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:59 pm

Let's take a step back from the fine details of ID / Evolution debate and ask a simple question...

How did the Universe originate? Accepted view is the "Big Bang" theory...but that does not address the "how". It only deals with the effects.

So "something" caused all the matter that was in the universe that was contained in an infantesimal point in space to expand. What was that "something"?

Is it a stretch to say that there was an intelligence at work that caused it?

Expanding on that...if an intelligence did cause the creation of the universe as we know it...is it a stretch to say this intelligence laid the foundation for life to originate? Not saying it created man and the dinosaurs, but it could have created the conditions required.

To me this is the foundation of Intelligent Design...while Evolution (micro and macro) can explain life as we see it today...it does nothing to explain the origins.

Is it hard to accept that "something" was at work here?


DPinkerton

Posts : 171
Join date : 2012-08-14
Location : Colorado

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  Blondie1 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:22 pm

DPinkerton wrote:Let's take a step back from the fine details of ID / Evolution debate and ask a simple question...

How did the Universe originate? Accepted view is the "Big Bang" theory...but that does not address the "how". It only deals with the effects.

So "something" caused all the matter that was in the universe that was contained in an infantesimal point in space to expand. What was that "something"?

Is it a stretch to say that there was an intelligence at work that caused it?

Expanding on that...if an intelligence did cause the creation of the universe as we know it...is it a stretch to say this intelligence laid the foundation for life to originate? Not saying it created man and the dinosaurs, but it could have created the conditions required.

To me this is the foundation of Intelligent Design...while Evolution (micro and macro) can explain life as we see it today...it does nothing to explain the origins.

Is it hard to accept that "something" was at work here?



Not for me! sunny DP you are always a voice of reason!

avatar
Blondie1

Posts : 344
Join date : 2012-08-05
Age : 21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  Blondie1 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:44 pm

SciaticPain wrote:Umm that article by Jerry Bergman is from a creationist research institute so the bias speaks for itself...anyways this guy Jerry just puts up a smokescreen of semantics and doubletalk and does nothing to address the issue of why its not hard to see that the path this nerve takes is unnecessarily complex one, (He even argues that other nerves take long, illogical routes- duh that's the point!) especially in long necked critters like giraffes. Anyways yet to see a coherent argument against this failed design.

But don't you see Sciatic,God had to put that extra length somewhere since our necks aren't as long! Wink

As far as me calling you guys out isn't that what you did to me here
If you read what TZ linked He says that the ID could have just been the JUMP Start to creation of Life.

Anyways sorry if I offended you with facts, references and links to actual published accounts of macroevolution.

But Sciatic you acted offended at the link I used .

Let it be known that I have not once called anyone on here a spoiled brat or any other name- that's on you.
That Sciatic was commendable.

You and TZ both got to look at your own level of disrespect, semantic flipfloppery, and genuine ignorance of data.
You can always move the topic to the moderated section anytime. Then all the blame can be the current mods who are editing.

If you feel like you are being attacked it is probably due to the congnitive dissonance of a worldview incompatible with reality. ( As defined by you and the theories you support.)

And again, fine to have all these pet theories of AI/DI/ID or whatever- but when you come attacking evolution just cuz neither of you don't understand it then I gots to stand up for it- because the medieval ages were called the dark ages for good reason- and yeah I will rally against ID/creationist/alien dribble any chance I get. Twisted Evil

Just as those that disagree with you will also do.

LOL I do sense you have a bit of humor here. Remember these are your beliefs. Where we all get in trouble is getting defensive if others do not believe or see things the way we do. That goes for everyone.


And its not so much that your view differs from mine....it differs from all of modern biologists. People who spend more time on this subject than me or you. cyclops ( Are you sure ALL of modern biologists? That's a pretty broad statement.)




avatar
Blondie1

Posts : 344
Join date : 2012-08-05
Age : 21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  SciaticPain on Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:22 am

[quote="CMcMillan"]I am not being disrespectful.

You and Burden will never accept any evidence of Bigfoot unless its in a zoo and you can see it for your own eyes. So i don't really understand why your in these kinds of forums.


When did I say I don't believe in Bigfoot- where is that? I am 100% a bigfoot believer, have spoke with several people who have seen one and I trust the veracity of their accounts. Not to mention several lines of evidence which I think strongly suggest it's presence.

I am in these types of forums to hopefully bring some scientific, logical, evidence based discussions to a field I believe is rife with infighting, pseudo-scientific "just so" gibberish, and unaccountable convictions. I think I am begininning to realize that might be to tall of an order for me fulfill.

Later

SciaticPain

Posts : 11
Join date : 2012-11-25

View user profile http://antediluviansalad.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  Tzieth on Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:05 am

SciaticPain wrote:Macroevolution in fruit flies
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.abstract

Macroevolution observed in the lab. Testable, verifiable, repeatable proof.

The whole fruit fly argument Tz keeps bringing up is bogus, because the fruit flies are not in a natural setting where any kind of selective pressure was enforced. Secondly Drosophilia has been implicated in a number of speciation events see link below. The E. coli experiment in above example was a test for the ability of E. coli to evolve the ability to digest citrate. Read it.

Here is a link to a list of observed speciation events.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Evolution is the only theory that ties together the synthesis of knowledge in paleontology, microbiology, ecology, genetics, anatomy and biology. Although science is always squabblling over the details of how certain things in life history occurred, what is not at argument among biologists is that evolution caused them.

To get around the problem, creationists often try to separate evolution into two types, micro-evolution and macro-evolution. They argue that micro-evolution can make minor changes, but can¹t build new structures or make other major changes to organisms. Although “the attempt to differentiate between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization” (according to Wikipedia), creationists often claim that a chain of small micro-evolutionary steps can¹t add up to a macro-evolutionary step.

Examples of evolution abound- but where is the creationist/ID/unicorn/alien intervention proof? Nada, zilch, zero.

I can tell you I believe it was magic smurfs that sowed the seeds for life on planet earth. Later on Papa smurf came by and told paleolithic people to throw some seeds in the ground. You say aliens but I say it was Papa smurf. The point is neither of us can prove our idea- and we don't need to when simpler explanations abound.

Did alien ants need to intervene on behalf of leaf-cutter ants and tell them how to grow fungus and farm it from chopped up leaves? no and aliens did not need to teach us how to farm.

When we need to constantly put forth some type of god/ID/alien helper it really diminishes the accomplishments of our own species and our forefathers.

I'm sure Tz and McMillian will just ignore my arguments and find some semantic argument around them but when facts become insults we are all in trouble.

Oh yeah although I read about the founder of ID you guys still have not got back to me about the recurrent laryngeal nerve!?!

Nope I did not ignore anything.. I went to every irrelevant link you sent. All you are doing is further proving my case and trying to call micro-evolution macro. Species can become other species. Species CANNOT become another genus. Mutations occur that will change skin color, hair color, eye-color, bone structure, height. weight and hair density. Those genes are already pre-set within the genus. Homo-Sapines-Sapiens carry the gene that would make us as hairy as Sasquatch. (Hypertrichosis). This was laready pre-set into our genus. But you NEVER hear about humans born with ape feet because this is not in our genus code. You may get a birth defect that causes a deformity that could resemble an apes feet, but that is not genetic. You could be born with actual hands for feet, but that is also not genetic. That would be the result something going wrong within your fetal development, such as cleft lip or clubbed foot.

Now quit giving me links that only prove micro-evolution, and show me this proof of macro. Rolling Eyes
avatar
Tzieth

Posts : 478
Join date : 2012-08-27
Age : 43
Location : Vancouver, Washington

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  CMcMillan on Thu Nov 29, 2012 8:02 am

[quote="SciaticPain"]
CMcMillan wrote:I am not being disrespectful.

You and Burden will never accept any evidence of Bigfoot unless its in a zoo and you can see it for your own eyes. So i don't really understand why your in these kinds of forums.


When did I say I don't believe in Bigfoot- where is that? I am 100% a bigfoot believer, have spoke with several people who have seen one and I trust the veracity of their accounts. Not to mention several lines of evidence which I think strongly suggest it's presence.

I am in these types of forums to hopefully bring some scientific, logical, evidence based discussions to a field I believe is rife with infighting, pseudo-scientific "just so" gibberish, and unaccountable convictions. I think I am begininning to realize that might be to tall of an order for me fulfill.

Later

Then Do you t hink Bigfoot is an APE or this Human/Hybrid?
Is the DNA research good enough for you and Melba's Findings?

And if it is a Human Hybrid it will change your view of Evolution and when and where certain Homminids Lived alongside Modern Human.
I mean lets not forget again your "great scientists" Believed that Neanderthal and Modern Human didn't Interbreed or even live at the same time.

So you are sit here and saying that Our view is nothing but Pseudo Science yet Your "Great Scientists" are not even able to get their facts straight and they keep changing the goal posts.
So why can't the Goal Post be allowed to change with another scientific Belief.
Your stuck on this notion because you don't seem to like the Idea of faith and this mysterious force jump starting creation. Yet like Doll says you believe in the Big Bang which is a Jump start.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  CMcMillan on Thu Nov 29, 2012 9:56 am

http://kasamaproject.org/2012/08/07/genetics-fossils-two-track-to-human-origins-two-entwined-tales/

Interesting write up showing the paleoanthropologists not agreeing with the DNA
So which is correct? Just because paleoanthropologists can't find a Fossil doesn't mean its not true right?
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum