What Is a Molecular Machine and Why Is It Irreducibly Complex?
[continued]
Molecular machines are complex structures located inside of cells or on the surface of cells. One popular example is the bacterial flagella. This whip-like structure is composed of many proteins, and its rotation propels bacteria through their environment. The molecular machine of interest in a recent PNAS article is a protein transport machine located in the mitochondria.2 This machine transports proteins across the membrane of mitochondria so they can perform the very important function of making energy.
[continue]
Science Disproves Evolution
Science Disproves Evolution
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
What Is a Molecular Machine and Why Is It Irreducibly Complex?
[continued]
Molecular machines are considered to be irreducibly complex. An irreducibly complex machine is made of a number of essential parts, and all these parts must be present for it to function properly. If even one of these parts is missing the machine is non-functional. Evolution, which supposedly works in a stepwise fashion over long periods of time, can’t form these complex machines.
[continue]
[continued]
Molecular machines are considered to be irreducibly complex. An irreducibly complex machine is made of a number of essential parts, and all these parts must be present for it to function properly. If even one of these parts is missing the machine is non-functional. Evolution, which supposedly works in a stepwise fashion over long periods of time, can’t form these complex machines.
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
What Is a Molecular Machine and Why Is It Irreducibly Complex?
[continued]
Evolution is not goal-oriented; it cannot work towards a specific outcome. If a part of the machine would happen to form by random chance mutation (which itself is not plausible, see Are Mutations Part of the “Engine of Evolution?), but the other parts of the machine were not formed at the same time, then the organism containing that individual part (by itself non-functional) would not have a particular survival advantage and would not be selected for.
[continue]
[continued]
Evolution is not goal-oriented; it cannot work towards a specific outcome. If a part of the machine would happen to form by random chance mutation (which itself is not plausible, see Are Mutations Part of the “Engine of Evolution?), but the other parts of the machine were not formed at the same time, then the organism containing that individual part (by itself non-functional) would not have a particular survival advantage and would not be selected for.
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
What Is a Molecular Machine and Why Is It Irreducibly Complex?
[continued]
Since the part offers no advantage to the organism, it would likely be lost from the population, and evolution would be back to square one in forming the parts for the machine. There is essentially no way to collect the parts over time because the individual parts do not have a function (without the other parts) and do not give the organism a survival advantage. Remember, all the necessary parts must be present for the machine to be functional and convey a survival advantage that could be selected for.
https://answersingenesis.org/intelligen ... omplexity/
[continued]
Since the part offers no advantage to the organism, it would likely be lost from the population, and evolution would be back to square one in forming the parts for the machine. There is essentially no way to collect the parts over time because the individual parts do not have a function (without the other parts) and do not give the organism a survival advantage. Remember, all the necessary parts must be present for the machine to be functional and convey a survival advantage that could be selected for.
https://answersingenesis.org/intelligen ... omplexity/
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Who said anything about man made items? How does a watch compare with a snowflake? A snowflake comprises of a great deal of intricate fractals, brought about by a set of atmospheric circumstances. Those circumstances may occur naturally or duplicated in the laboratory (not naturally, therefore supernaturally, to coin one of your dichotomies). The constituent components of a watch are also made from intricate molecular structures, which occur either naturally or under manufactured circumstances, so as to provide further structure.
As another of your pastes state, Evolution is not goal orientated. So what? No-one said it was. It is something that happens according to the present circumstances. Evolution doesn't look to the future. Is has no power of prophecy.
As for the part offering no advantage, it would be lost - close, but still no cigar. They are shown to diminish, yet they are still there. For instance, humans still have a tail bone (sternum), and once in a while babies are born with a full size tail, which is simply a fall back to the original genetic ancestry. The genes for the existence of a tail are still there, they just aren't generally switched on. Another typical Creationist argument is that apes are covered in hair, whereas humans are not. Well, as it happens, humans have about the same number of hair follicles as the apes do. These are points which may appear to have disappeared, but they haven't. They've merely changed (Evolved).
So far, everything you've pasted seems to support the concept of Evolution.
As another of your pastes state, Evolution is not goal orientated. So what? No-one said it was. It is something that happens according to the present circumstances. Evolution doesn't look to the future. Is has no power of prophecy.
As for the part offering no advantage, it would be lost - close, but still no cigar. They are shown to diminish, yet they are still there. For instance, humans still have a tail bone (sternum), and once in a while babies are born with a full size tail, which is simply a fall back to the original genetic ancestry. The genes for the existence of a tail are still there, they just aren't generally switched on. Another typical Creationist argument is that apes are covered in hair, whereas humans are not. Well, as it happens, humans have about the same number of hair follicles as the apes do. These are points which may appear to have disappeared, but they haven't. They've merely changed (Evolved).
So far, everything you've pasted seems to support the concept of Evolution.
Science Disproves Evolution
Just a point but the coccyx is the tail bone. The sternum is the breast bone. It doesn't alter your argument whatever.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1490948 wrote: Just a point but the coccyx is the tail bone. The sternum is the breast bone. It doesn't alter your argument whatever.Absolutely right. A slip of the mind. Must have been thinking of the "Stern"
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1490937 wrote:
As for the part offering no advantage, it would be lost - close, but still no cigar. They are shown to diminish, yet they are still there. For instance, humans still have a tail bone (sternum), and once in a while babies are born with a full size tail, which is simply a fall back to the original genetic ancestry. The genes for the existence of a tail are still there, they just aren't generally switched on. Another typical Creationist argument is that apes are covered in hair, whereas humans are not. Well, as it happens, humans have about the same number of hair follicles as the apes do. These are points which may appear to have disappeared, but they haven't. They've merely changed (Evolved).
So far, everything you've pasted seems to support the concept of Evolution.
In what way? Here is some information about the tailbone you may be unaware of:
Tailbone
Coccyx
The tailbone or coccyx has often been presumed to be vestigial and a leftover remnant to our alleged mammal and reptilian ancestors who also had tails. Evidence that is cited includes the variable number of bony segments humans can have (usually 4 but can be 3 or 5) as well as “babies born with tails. But these so called tails are not really tails at all and instead are a type of fatty tumor. There are no bones or muscles in them at all, and thus, it cannot truly be considered a vestigial organ.
Spinney acknowledges that the coccyx now has a “modified function, notably as an anchor point for the muscles that hold the anus in place. In fact, the coccyx is the anchor point for the muscles that form the entire pelvic diaphragm. Therefore, while the coccyx has a clear function in humans today, the only reason to claim that the function has been modified is because of evolutionary assumptions. If you believe that humans descended from animals that possessed tails, then there must have been a modification of the tailbone. In contrast, if our ancestor Adam was created by God then there was no modification, and our tailbone is just as it always was. Without the evolutionary presupposition, the evidence that the tailbone is vestigial evaporates.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -vestigial
As for the part offering no advantage, it would be lost - close, but still no cigar. They are shown to diminish, yet they are still there. For instance, humans still have a tail bone (sternum), and once in a while babies are born with a full size tail, which is simply a fall back to the original genetic ancestry. The genes for the existence of a tail are still there, they just aren't generally switched on. Another typical Creationist argument is that apes are covered in hair, whereas humans are not. Well, as it happens, humans have about the same number of hair follicles as the apes do. These are points which may appear to have disappeared, but they haven't. They've merely changed (Evolved).
So far, everything you've pasted seems to support the concept of Evolution.
In what way? Here is some information about the tailbone you may be unaware of:
Tailbone
Coccyx
The tailbone or coccyx has often been presumed to be vestigial and a leftover remnant to our alleged mammal and reptilian ancestors who also had tails. Evidence that is cited includes the variable number of bony segments humans can have (usually 4 but can be 3 or 5) as well as “babies born with tails. But these so called tails are not really tails at all and instead are a type of fatty tumor. There are no bones or muscles in them at all, and thus, it cannot truly be considered a vestigial organ.
Spinney acknowledges that the coccyx now has a “modified function, notably as an anchor point for the muscles that hold the anus in place. In fact, the coccyx is the anchor point for the muscles that form the entire pelvic diaphragm. Therefore, while the coccyx has a clear function in humans today, the only reason to claim that the function has been modified is because of evolutionary assumptions. If you believe that humans descended from animals that possessed tails, then there must have been a modification of the tailbone. In contrast, if our ancestor Adam was created by God then there was no modification, and our tailbone is just as it always was. Without the evolutionary presupposition, the evidence that the tailbone is vestigial evaporates.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -vestigial
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1490982 wrote: In what way? Here is some information about the tailbone you may be unaware of:
Tailbone
Coccyx
The tailbone or coccyx has often been presumed to be vestigial and a leftover remnant to our alleged mammal and reptilian ancestors who also had tails. Evidence that is cited includes the variable number of bony segments humans can have (usually 4 but can be 3 or 5) as well as “babies born with tails. But these so called tails are not really tails at all and instead are a type of fatty tumor. There are no bones or muscles in them at all, and thus, it cannot truly be considered a vestigial organ.
Spinney acknowledges that the coccyx now has a “modified function, notably as an anchor point for the muscles that hold the anus in place. In fact, the coccyx is the anchor point for the muscles that form the entire pelvic diaphragm. Therefore, while the coccyx has a clear function in humans today, the only reason to claim that the function has been modified is because of evolutionary assumptions. If you believe that humans descended from animals that possessed tails, then there must have been a modification of the tailbone. In contrast, if our ancestor Adam was created by God then there was no modification, and our tailbone is just as it always was. Without the evolutionary presupposition, the evidence that the tailbone is vestigial evaporates.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -vestigial
The coccyx (/ˈkɒksɪks/ kok-siks; plural: coccyges or coccyxes), commonly referred to as the tailbone, is the final segment of the vertebral column in humans and apes, and certain other mammals such as horses. In animals with bony tails, it is known as tailhead or dock, in bird anatomy as tailfan. It comprises three to five separate or fused coccygeal vertebrae below the sacrum, attached to the sacrum by a fibrocartilaginous joint, the sacrococcygeal symphysis, which permits limited movement between the sacrum and the coccyx.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx
Where is your evidence for a coccyx being a type of fatty tumour besides your link looking for a poor excuse not to recognise it as vertebrae ?
Tailbone
Coccyx
The tailbone or coccyx has often been presumed to be vestigial and a leftover remnant to our alleged mammal and reptilian ancestors who also had tails. Evidence that is cited includes the variable number of bony segments humans can have (usually 4 but can be 3 or 5) as well as “babies born with tails. But these so called tails are not really tails at all and instead are a type of fatty tumor. There are no bones or muscles in them at all, and thus, it cannot truly be considered a vestigial organ.
Spinney acknowledges that the coccyx now has a “modified function, notably as an anchor point for the muscles that hold the anus in place. In fact, the coccyx is the anchor point for the muscles that form the entire pelvic diaphragm. Therefore, while the coccyx has a clear function in humans today, the only reason to claim that the function has been modified is because of evolutionary assumptions. If you believe that humans descended from animals that possessed tails, then there must have been a modification of the tailbone. In contrast, if our ancestor Adam was created by God then there was no modification, and our tailbone is just as it always was. Without the evolutionary presupposition, the evidence that the tailbone is vestigial evaporates.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -vestigial
The coccyx (/ˈkɒksɪks/ kok-siks; plural: coccyges or coccyxes), commonly referred to as the tailbone, is the final segment of the vertebral column in humans and apes, and certain other mammals such as horses. In animals with bony tails, it is known as tailhead or dock, in bird anatomy as tailfan. It comprises three to five separate or fused coccygeal vertebrae below the sacrum, attached to the sacrum by a fibrocartilaginous joint, the sacrococcygeal symphysis, which permits limited movement between the sacrum and the coccyx.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx
Where is your evidence for a coccyx being a type of fatty tumour besides your link looking for a poor excuse not to recognise it as vertebrae ?
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1490983 wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx
Where is your evidence for a coccyx being a type of fatty tumour besides your link looking for a poor excuse not to recognise it as vertebrae ?
Human tails?
‘Atavistic tails’ and evolution
by Calvin Smith and Carl Wieland
A persistent argument for evolution is the idea of supposed atavistic organs. These are thought to be ‘throwbacks’ to a believed evolutionary ancestral state. This is allegedly caused by genetic information within the DNA for that ancestral trait which is somehow (e.g. by mutation) ‘uncovered’ or able to express itself. Whereas it had previously been ‘covered’ or repressed (‘switched off’), now it is ‘switched on’.
This is related to (but not the same as) the issue of so-called ‘vestigial’ organs, which are supposed to be useless or degenerate organs that are a ‘leftover’ from our evolutionary past. A prime example of this in humans used to be the appendix, now known to have definite function.
Serious medical researchers now refer to this sort of structure as “a disturbance in the development of the embryo but not a regression in the evolutionary process. [from Paediatric Neurology]
Creationists have long debunked vestigial claims for human organs and features such as the appendix, tonsils, coccyx, male nipples, body hair, etc. Even many evolutionists have abandoned these weak and tired arguments. Some seek to redefine or at least nuance the term to try to evade the force of these refutations, but close scrutiny continues to show the weakness of the argument. More modern versions of these ‘vestigial’ claims (such as the failed ‘Junk DNA’ idea) constantly arise as older arguments fall off the evolutionary bandwagon.
This never-say-die enthusiasm is because any useless or ‘left-over’ organs would be seen as ‘smoking gun evidence’ of our long evolutionary march from earlier organisms to our present form. Why else, they say, would we carry genetic information for organs and features that serve no purpose today? Much the same argument applies, of course, if one could point to atavisms, or spontaneously appearing ‘throwbacks’ to an organ that an ancestor had, but which does not appear in most ‘normal’ humans.
Humans with tails?
A popular example of ‘atavism’ these days is the claim that humans are sometimes born with fully functioning tails. Just such a claim was made by the professing (but questionable) Christian Karl Giberson (a major contributor to the theistic evolutionary organization Biologos and author of the book Saving Darwin; How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution) during a debate with Intelligent Design proponent Stephen Meyer.
Writing about this aspect of the debate afterwards, Giberson said:
“Why does the human genome contain instructions for the production of features we don’t use? The scientific explanation is that we inherited these instructions from our tailed ancestors but the instructions for producing them have been shut off in our genomes, which is why Shallow Hal is the only person most people know who has a tail. Sometimes the ‘ignore these genes’ message gets lost in fetal development, however, and babies are born with perfectly formed, even functional tails.
During his debate Giberson actually showed a photo of a human baby with a tail attached to verify his claim. Embarrassingly for him, it turned out to be a photoshopped image apparently obtained from the satirical website cracked.com (a ‘vestigial remnant’ of the knock-off of Mad magazine) rather than a real medical example! Giberson has since apologized but it is hardly a shining example of due diligence for a Ph.D. scientist, and a good warning for those who blindly accept such evolutionary ‘evidences’ without thoroughly examining their validity.
Prominent atheistic evolutionist and biologist Jerry Coyne makes similar claims in his book Why evolution is true. He says:
“Rarely ¦ a baby is born with a tail projecting from the base of its spine. The tails vary tremendously ¦ some ¦ contain vertebrae ¦ Fortunately, these awkward protrusions are easily removed by surgeons.
So the claim by many evolutionists is that sometimes human babies are born with “perfectly formed, even functional tails which are obvious ‘throwbacks’ to the tailed condition of their evolutionary ancestors.
As alluded to earlier, they claim that the ‘vestigial’ genes for these tails remain encoded in the DNA of all humans, and that the tails form when these normally dormant genes are accidentally reactivated. Further proof of this idea is said to be the fact that what is alleged to be a ‘tail’ can be seen forming in every human embryo (although this ‘tail’ disappears during normal development).
They also state that people with these tails at birth are often perfectly normal and healthy and the tails are (as Coyne says) ‘easily removed’ (presumably meant to reinforce the idea that these evolutionary atavisms aren’t pathological, i.e. ‘abnormalities’ in the sense of causing disease or disability).
Do people have tails?
Humans are sometimes born with various types of bulbous or tubular growths, from a number of different types of causes. Where these are on their lower backs, though medically termed ‘caudal appendages’, they are commonly referred to as ‘human tails’. An online image search using the search phrase ‘human tails’ reveals many (sometimes disturbing) images of people with this sort of condition.
The most popular story lay people have been exposed to regarding this is probably that of Arshid Ali Khan, a teenager from Punjab in India. A ‘human tail’ search online is virtually guaranteed to find news reports, videos and images regarding this young man. He has been hailed by some as a reincarnation of the Hindu monkey god Hanuman because of the 18-cm (7-inch) tail he has. Unfortunately, like most people born with ‘tails’, he has associated medical challenges. He cannot walk because of partial paralysis and must use a wheelchair. The UK’s Daily Mail has reported that doctors are considering removing the appendage, as even though Arshid’s condition has not been formally diagnosed, they:
“¦ believe his tail and partial paralysis could be a sign that he has a form of spina bifida called meningocele. This develops when membranes poke through a hole between the vertebrae in the back.
What are these ‘tails’?
There are, broadly speaking, two types of these appendages, which may vary from a few centimetres to well over 10 centimetres long. In medical literature some are referred to as ‘true tails’ (which contain muscle, can move and are located extending from the coccyx) and others are termed ‘pseudo tails’ (which are generally flaccid and can be located in a variety of places). This terminology itself (based on evolutionary assumptions) is one of the challenges for creationists arguing against evolutionists about this claim. Someone investigating this debate can find scientific papers where doctors and scientists use the term ‘human tails’, so many people look no further and cite them as experts confirming the evolutionary argument.
The problem is that the term ‘tail’ is used more descriptively than scientifically. If someone is born with a tubular growth extending from their shoulder or arm it is not usually referred to as a tail because it isn’t situated in the area in which most people would expect to see a tail on a creature. But when one appears on the lower back or buttocks it is easy to see why the term is used. The fact that some of these ‘tails’ can appear other than where tails on creatures would normally be is a good argument against them truly being vestigial growths, but rather pathological, i.e., abnormalities of normal human development unrelated to any ‘ancestral genes’.
As one researcher from Duke University Medical Center (Durham, N.C) stated:
“One of the earliest etiological [causal] explanations for the ‘human tail’ was that it was a remnant of the embryologic tail seen during gestation. There are several problems with this theory, the most obvious being that these occur in locations other than the embryologic sacrococcygeal region.
Even the names ‘true tail’ and ‘pseudo tail’ are misleading, because the causes of each of these deformities are now thought to be related.
“Caudal appendages or human tails were divided by Dao and Netsky into true tails, which contain muscle and are movable, and pseudotails, which do not move. However, this is now considered arbitrary and without clinical significance as both kinds are derived from notocordal remnants and the etiology [= cause] of both is probably similar.
Harmless leftovers?
Modern doctors familiar with this sort of condition seem unanimous in their description of human tails as being the result of birth defects. Like the example of Arshid Ali Khan, almost all of those with these caudal appendages have related potentially serious medical conditions. Of the anomalies associated with people that have ‘tails’, the most common are spinal dysraphism, meningocele, spina bifida (on its own), and tethered spinal cord, with many others also being reported.
Human ‘tails’, although extremely rare, have been known about for a long time. It has only been fairly recently though that techniques like CT (computerized tomography) and MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scans have been available, and some of the conditions associated with these caudal appendages can only be properly diagnosed and assessed using such equipment.
A case report published in 2010 said the following;
“A human tail is a rare congenital anomaly with a prominent lesion from the lumbosacrococcygeal region. Many authors saw this curious and rare condition to be evidence of man’s descent from or relation to other animals ¦ Advanced imaging technology in recent decades has allowed a more thorough investigation of these patients and better defined their association with spinal dysraphism and tethered spinal cord.
A 2008 report in the Journal of Perinatology stated:
“The most important feature of caudal appendages is the possibility of associated spinal dysraphism, which needs to be treated to prevent the development of neurologic symptoms. Therefore, caudal appendages require meticulous imaging and neurological evaluation to insure that appropriate surgery is performed to prevent progressive neurologic symptoms.14
However, papers written ‘pre-MRI’, so to speak, made claims like this (not speaking of lipomata, see Fatty Folly):
“(a) vestigial tail can be “easily removed surgically, without residual effects.
“The true human tail is a benign condition not associated with any underlying (spinal) cord malformation.
So older commentory on this condition may have seriously underestimated the associated medical problems of patients with ‘tails’ because of a lack of equipment, and/or the false Darwinian concept of ‘atavistic organs’ they learned from their text books.
Whether such a ‘tail’ has muscle (which makes it movable) or not, due to the frequent association of a suite of abnormalities, serious medical researchers now refer to this sort of structure as “a disturbance in the development of the embryo but not a regression in the evolutionary process.
Fatty folly
On occasions, an assumed ‘tail’ turns out to be a simple fatty tumour, known as a lipoma. Lipomas are common and can occur just about anywhere there is fatty tissue, commonly forming just under the skin. They can often develop and grow in an adult, too. On the many occasions that such a tumour happened to appear in any other region of the body, it would never be suggested that it was a tail, even if it were somewhat elongated. Unlike the ‘human tails’ discussed by medical researchers, a lipoma can indeed be very easily removed, even by someone with very limited surgical experience. And upon such removal, the diagnosis will be obvious, which is that it has nothing to do with tails, atavistic or otherwise.
The tale of the human embyronic ‘tail’
Nonetheless, such a powerful and graphic idea as a ‘human tail’ dies hard, and (especially when bolstered with faked and photoshopped images and video footage) remains popular on the internet. Reinforcing it is the idea that all human embryos have ‘tails’ at one stage. Many believe that the genes responsible for this ‘embryonic tail’ are the ones that when ‘not switched off’, are the cause of the ‘human tails’ discussed here.
Tail?
The idea that all human embryos have a ‘tail’ is similarly false if by that is meant anything to do with a tailed ancestor. It comes from the fact that during the fourth or fifth week of the normal process of development, all humans develop aposterior extension of the embryo’s developing musculoskeletal structure beyond the anus that helps unfold the human body plan and nervous system. This is, however, not because of some vestigial ‘tail DNA’; it is a critical stage of programmed human embryonic development as the notochord and neural tubes extend throughout most of this tail-shaped structure.
This structure, only very superficially like a tail, acts as a type of template or scaffolding which induces or guides the formation of other structures at precise times during later development (for example the notochord acts as a template for cells that develop into vertebrae). Once those developments are complete genetic programming ensures the removal of the original structure as it is no longer needed. And this is not unique to just this posterior extension; many such structures form and are reabsorbed during normal human development. The Annals of Anatomy (though unfortunately perpetuating the convention of calling it a ‘tail’) describes it this way:
“During normal human development a number of transient structures form and subsequently regress completely. One of the most prominent structures that regress during development is the human tail ¦ Initially, the human tail is composed of tail bud mesenchyme which differentiates into caudal somites, secondary neural tube, notochord and tail gut.
An analogy would be like a stone mason making an archway. Because the stones of an arch will not stand by themselves until the keystone is placed to complete it, masons build a ‘buck’ (a wooden scaffold in the shape of the arch) underneath it so that it will support the stones as the arch is being built. Upon completion the buck is removed and the completed archway is self-supporting. Unless you had watched the arch being built you may never have known the scaffold was ever there. And it typifies forethought and design, not some haphazardly thrown-together accumulation of leftovers.
Fully functioning tails?
Analyzing the declaration that humans are sometimes born with ‘fully functioning’ tails can be better achieved by defining what a real tail is, what the functions of tails are, and the structure required for that function, then comparing them to so-called ‘human tails’. Remember, the argument about ‘fully functioning’ is not whether humans have ever been born with a growth where a tail might be (if we had been designed with tails). Nor even whether a protrusion caused by developmental abnormality ever contains muscle (which if connected to nerves will contract and thus cause the protrusion to move). It is whether humans ever have actual tails comparable to animal tails or not (whether in embryonic form or when born).
Thus, the claim that humans are sometimes born with ‘fully functioning’ tails is misleading and false.
Animal tails have fully developed structural vertebrae continuing past the rear hips with appropriately attached muscles, nerves activating these muscles with the appropriate neural pathways for the control of the tail (all the way to and in the brain) and other needed soft tissues present in anatomically appropriate relationship with all these.
The tails of animals, under the control of the respective creatures, are used for the following: prehensile grasping, brushing insects away, as a decoy for defence (like when lizards voluntarily detach their tails), communication (like a dog wagging its tail to show it is happy, or a cat slashing its tail to show it is upset), keeping warm (like a husky laying in a circle and covering its nose), and probably most importantly, for balance when walking and running.
Despite the impression one gains, no so-called ‘true tail’ (remember, these have muscle) in humans has ever been found to contain bone or cartilage. And even though ‘pseudo-tails’ have been found to contain bone, they don’t contain vertebrae (Coyne’s statement that some human tails have vertebrae appears to be false from all accounts we have been able to assess). So all these caudal appendages do not closely resemble at all any real animal tail structurally. And no humans born with such an abnormality are able to use their caudal appendage for any of the functions above. Thus, the claim that humans are sometimes born with ‘fully functioning’ tails is misleading and false.
Physician and surgeon Dr. Michael Egnor (Vice-Chairman, Department of Neurological Surgery, and Director, Pediatric Neurosurgery, at State University of New York at Stony Brook) who has actual surgical experience with this type of condition stated the following about ‘human tails’:
None of them—and none of the reports in the literature that I know of—are actual tails.—Michael Egnor (Director, Pediatric Neurosurgery, State University of New York).
“None of them—and none of the reports in the literature that I know of—are actual tails. A tail has vertebrae, is a continuation of the coccyx, has developed muscles, nerves and other soft tissues, etc. The appendages described in the literature, and all of the appendages on which I have operated, are dysmorphic mesenchymal tissue, often epithelialized exophytic dermal sinus tracts, that bear a superficial resemblance to a ‘tail’. None have the structure of a tail, even in rudimentary form, and none of the ones I have operated on were attached to the coccyx in the way that a tail is.25
For those unfamiliar with medical terminology that means that these so-called human tails are an abnormality consisting of a specific group of malformed cells (typically those capable of developing into connective tissues) from the middle germ layer of an embryo that form a lesion protruding outward from the skin forming a ‘tail-like’ growth. It is this middle germ cell layer, by the way, the mesoderm, which normally develops into structures that include muscle, so the presence of muscle in the occasional one of these is no surprise.
Summary and conclusion
The human embryo never has a ‘tail’ at any stage.
Developmental abnormalities can rarely cause caudal appendages which have been loosely termed ‘tails’.
These can be of varying types, and sometimes contain innervated muscle, causing them to be ‘movable’.
Though this has unfortunately led to the term ‘true tails’, no babies are ever born with anything that could be remotely called a true tail, structurally and functionally.
Medical researchers and clinicians that are faced with these rare occurrences are increasingly stating the obvious (whether or not they believe in evolution) that none of them are tails. Rather, they affirm their status as various types of birth defects, unrelated to any ‘animal ancestry’.
People with these caudal appendage defects most often suffer from a variety of potentially serious medical conditions (and most of the appendages are not ‘easily removed’ as vocal evolutionists claim).
These defects clearly provide no support for the claim that humans have vestigial genes for tails encoded in our DNA.
Once again a Darwinian myth, in this case ‘atavistic’ or ‘throwback’ organs, has been shown to be scientifically false. Try as hard as they might, they still can’t make a monkey out of us.
Human tails - creation.com
Where is your evidence for a coccyx being a type of fatty tumour besides your link looking for a poor excuse not to recognise it as vertebrae ?
Human tails?
‘Atavistic tails’ and evolution
by Calvin Smith and Carl Wieland
A persistent argument for evolution is the idea of supposed atavistic organs. These are thought to be ‘throwbacks’ to a believed evolutionary ancestral state. This is allegedly caused by genetic information within the DNA for that ancestral trait which is somehow (e.g. by mutation) ‘uncovered’ or able to express itself. Whereas it had previously been ‘covered’ or repressed (‘switched off’), now it is ‘switched on’.
This is related to (but not the same as) the issue of so-called ‘vestigial’ organs, which are supposed to be useless or degenerate organs that are a ‘leftover’ from our evolutionary past. A prime example of this in humans used to be the appendix, now known to have definite function.
Serious medical researchers now refer to this sort of structure as “a disturbance in the development of the embryo but not a regression in the evolutionary process. [from Paediatric Neurology]
Creationists have long debunked vestigial claims for human organs and features such as the appendix, tonsils, coccyx, male nipples, body hair, etc. Even many evolutionists have abandoned these weak and tired arguments. Some seek to redefine or at least nuance the term to try to evade the force of these refutations, but close scrutiny continues to show the weakness of the argument. More modern versions of these ‘vestigial’ claims (such as the failed ‘Junk DNA’ idea) constantly arise as older arguments fall off the evolutionary bandwagon.
This never-say-die enthusiasm is because any useless or ‘left-over’ organs would be seen as ‘smoking gun evidence’ of our long evolutionary march from earlier organisms to our present form. Why else, they say, would we carry genetic information for organs and features that serve no purpose today? Much the same argument applies, of course, if one could point to atavisms, or spontaneously appearing ‘throwbacks’ to an organ that an ancestor had, but which does not appear in most ‘normal’ humans.
Humans with tails?
A popular example of ‘atavism’ these days is the claim that humans are sometimes born with fully functioning tails. Just such a claim was made by the professing (but questionable) Christian Karl Giberson (a major contributor to the theistic evolutionary organization Biologos and author of the book Saving Darwin; How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution) during a debate with Intelligent Design proponent Stephen Meyer.
Writing about this aspect of the debate afterwards, Giberson said:
“Why does the human genome contain instructions for the production of features we don’t use? The scientific explanation is that we inherited these instructions from our tailed ancestors but the instructions for producing them have been shut off in our genomes, which is why Shallow Hal is the only person most people know who has a tail. Sometimes the ‘ignore these genes’ message gets lost in fetal development, however, and babies are born with perfectly formed, even functional tails.
During his debate Giberson actually showed a photo of a human baby with a tail attached to verify his claim. Embarrassingly for him, it turned out to be a photoshopped image apparently obtained from the satirical website cracked.com (a ‘vestigial remnant’ of the knock-off of Mad magazine) rather than a real medical example! Giberson has since apologized but it is hardly a shining example of due diligence for a Ph.D. scientist, and a good warning for those who blindly accept such evolutionary ‘evidences’ without thoroughly examining their validity.
Prominent atheistic evolutionist and biologist Jerry Coyne makes similar claims in his book Why evolution is true. He says:
“Rarely ¦ a baby is born with a tail projecting from the base of its spine. The tails vary tremendously ¦ some ¦ contain vertebrae ¦ Fortunately, these awkward protrusions are easily removed by surgeons.
So the claim by many evolutionists is that sometimes human babies are born with “perfectly formed, even functional tails which are obvious ‘throwbacks’ to the tailed condition of their evolutionary ancestors.
As alluded to earlier, they claim that the ‘vestigial’ genes for these tails remain encoded in the DNA of all humans, and that the tails form when these normally dormant genes are accidentally reactivated. Further proof of this idea is said to be the fact that what is alleged to be a ‘tail’ can be seen forming in every human embryo (although this ‘tail’ disappears during normal development).
They also state that people with these tails at birth are often perfectly normal and healthy and the tails are (as Coyne says) ‘easily removed’ (presumably meant to reinforce the idea that these evolutionary atavisms aren’t pathological, i.e. ‘abnormalities’ in the sense of causing disease or disability).
Do people have tails?
Humans are sometimes born with various types of bulbous or tubular growths, from a number of different types of causes. Where these are on their lower backs, though medically termed ‘caudal appendages’, they are commonly referred to as ‘human tails’. An online image search using the search phrase ‘human tails’ reveals many (sometimes disturbing) images of people with this sort of condition.
The most popular story lay people have been exposed to regarding this is probably that of Arshid Ali Khan, a teenager from Punjab in India. A ‘human tail’ search online is virtually guaranteed to find news reports, videos and images regarding this young man. He has been hailed by some as a reincarnation of the Hindu monkey god Hanuman because of the 18-cm (7-inch) tail he has. Unfortunately, like most people born with ‘tails’, he has associated medical challenges. He cannot walk because of partial paralysis and must use a wheelchair. The UK’s Daily Mail has reported that doctors are considering removing the appendage, as even though Arshid’s condition has not been formally diagnosed, they:
“¦ believe his tail and partial paralysis could be a sign that he has a form of spina bifida called meningocele. This develops when membranes poke through a hole between the vertebrae in the back.
What are these ‘tails’?
There are, broadly speaking, two types of these appendages, which may vary from a few centimetres to well over 10 centimetres long. In medical literature some are referred to as ‘true tails’ (which contain muscle, can move and are located extending from the coccyx) and others are termed ‘pseudo tails’ (which are generally flaccid and can be located in a variety of places). This terminology itself (based on evolutionary assumptions) is one of the challenges for creationists arguing against evolutionists about this claim. Someone investigating this debate can find scientific papers where doctors and scientists use the term ‘human tails’, so many people look no further and cite them as experts confirming the evolutionary argument.
The problem is that the term ‘tail’ is used more descriptively than scientifically. If someone is born with a tubular growth extending from their shoulder or arm it is not usually referred to as a tail because it isn’t situated in the area in which most people would expect to see a tail on a creature. But when one appears on the lower back or buttocks it is easy to see why the term is used. The fact that some of these ‘tails’ can appear other than where tails on creatures would normally be is a good argument against them truly being vestigial growths, but rather pathological, i.e., abnormalities of normal human development unrelated to any ‘ancestral genes’.
As one researcher from Duke University Medical Center (Durham, N.C) stated:
“One of the earliest etiological [causal] explanations for the ‘human tail’ was that it was a remnant of the embryologic tail seen during gestation. There are several problems with this theory, the most obvious being that these occur in locations other than the embryologic sacrococcygeal region.
Even the names ‘true tail’ and ‘pseudo tail’ are misleading, because the causes of each of these deformities are now thought to be related.
“Caudal appendages or human tails were divided by Dao and Netsky into true tails, which contain muscle and are movable, and pseudotails, which do not move. However, this is now considered arbitrary and without clinical significance as both kinds are derived from notocordal remnants and the etiology [= cause] of both is probably similar.
Harmless leftovers?
Modern doctors familiar with this sort of condition seem unanimous in their description of human tails as being the result of birth defects. Like the example of Arshid Ali Khan, almost all of those with these caudal appendages have related potentially serious medical conditions. Of the anomalies associated with people that have ‘tails’, the most common are spinal dysraphism, meningocele, spina bifida (on its own), and tethered spinal cord, with many others also being reported.
Human ‘tails’, although extremely rare, have been known about for a long time. It has only been fairly recently though that techniques like CT (computerized tomography) and MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scans have been available, and some of the conditions associated with these caudal appendages can only be properly diagnosed and assessed using such equipment.
A case report published in 2010 said the following;
“A human tail is a rare congenital anomaly with a prominent lesion from the lumbosacrococcygeal region. Many authors saw this curious and rare condition to be evidence of man’s descent from or relation to other animals ¦ Advanced imaging technology in recent decades has allowed a more thorough investigation of these patients and better defined their association with spinal dysraphism and tethered spinal cord.
A 2008 report in the Journal of Perinatology stated:
“The most important feature of caudal appendages is the possibility of associated spinal dysraphism, which needs to be treated to prevent the development of neurologic symptoms. Therefore, caudal appendages require meticulous imaging and neurological evaluation to insure that appropriate surgery is performed to prevent progressive neurologic symptoms.14
However, papers written ‘pre-MRI’, so to speak, made claims like this (not speaking of lipomata, see Fatty Folly):
“(a) vestigial tail can be “easily removed surgically, without residual effects.
“The true human tail is a benign condition not associated with any underlying (spinal) cord malformation.
So older commentory on this condition may have seriously underestimated the associated medical problems of patients with ‘tails’ because of a lack of equipment, and/or the false Darwinian concept of ‘atavistic organs’ they learned from their text books.
Whether such a ‘tail’ has muscle (which makes it movable) or not, due to the frequent association of a suite of abnormalities, serious medical researchers now refer to this sort of structure as “a disturbance in the development of the embryo but not a regression in the evolutionary process.
Fatty folly
On occasions, an assumed ‘tail’ turns out to be a simple fatty tumour, known as a lipoma. Lipomas are common and can occur just about anywhere there is fatty tissue, commonly forming just under the skin. They can often develop and grow in an adult, too. On the many occasions that such a tumour happened to appear in any other region of the body, it would never be suggested that it was a tail, even if it were somewhat elongated. Unlike the ‘human tails’ discussed by medical researchers, a lipoma can indeed be very easily removed, even by someone with very limited surgical experience. And upon such removal, the diagnosis will be obvious, which is that it has nothing to do with tails, atavistic or otherwise.
The tale of the human embyronic ‘tail’
Nonetheless, such a powerful and graphic idea as a ‘human tail’ dies hard, and (especially when bolstered with faked and photoshopped images and video footage) remains popular on the internet. Reinforcing it is the idea that all human embryos have ‘tails’ at one stage. Many believe that the genes responsible for this ‘embryonic tail’ are the ones that when ‘not switched off’, are the cause of the ‘human tails’ discussed here.
Tail?
The idea that all human embryos have a ‘tail’ is similarly false if by that is meant anything to do with a tailed ancestor. It comes from the fact that during the fourth or fifth week of the normal process of development, all humans develop aposterior extension of the embryo’s developing musculoskeletal structure beyond the anus that helps unfold the human body plan and nervous system. This is, however, not because of some vestigial ‘tail DNA’; it is a critical stage of programmed human embryonic development as the notochord and neural tubes extend throughout most of this tail-shaped structure.
This structure, only very superficially like a tail, acts as a type of template or scaffolding which induces or guides the formation of other structures at precise times during later development (for example the notochord acts as a template for cells that develop into vertebrae). Once those developments are complete genetic programming ensures the removal of the original structure as it is no longer needed. And this is not unique to just this posterior extension; many such structures form and are reabsorbed during normal human development. The Annals of Anatomy (though unfortunately perpetuating the convention of calling it a ‘tail’) describes it this way:
“During normal human development a number of transient structures form and subsequently regress completely. One of the most prominent structures that regress during development is the human tail ¦ Initially, the human tail is composed of tail bud mesenchyme which differentiates into caudal somites, secondary neural tube, notochord and tail gut.
An analogy would be like a stone mason making an archway. Because the stones of an arch will not stand by themselves until the keystone is placed to complete it, masons build a ‘buck’ (a wooden scaffold in the shape of the arch) underneath it so that it will support the stones as the arch is being built. Upon completion the buck is removed and the completed archway is self-supporting. Unless you had watched the arch being built you may never have known the scaffold was ever there. And it typifies forethought and design, not some haphazardly thrown-together accumulation of leftovers.
Fully functioning tails?
Analyzing the declaration that humans are sometimes born with ‘fully functioning’ tails can be better achieved by defining what a real tail is, what the functions of tails are, and the structure required for that function, then comparing them to so-called ‘human tails’. Remember, the argument about ‘fully functioning’ is not whether humans have ever been born with a growth where a tail might be (if we had been designed with tails). Nor even whether a protrusion caused by developmental abnormality ever contains muscle (which if connected to nerves will contract and thus cause the protrusion to move). It is whether humans ever have actual tails comparable to animal tails or not (whether in embryonic form or when born).
Thus, the claim that humans are sometimes born with ‘fully functioning’ tails is misleading and false.
Animal tails have fully developed structural vertebrae continuing past the rear hips with appropriately attached muscles, nerves activating these muscles with the appropriate neural pathways for the control of the tail (all the way to and in the brain) and other needed soft tissues present in anatomically appropriate relationship with all these.
The tails of animals, under the control of the respective creatures, are used for the following: prehensile grasping, brushing insects away, as a decoy for defence (like when lizards voluntarily detach their tails), communication (like a dog wagging its tail to show it is happy, or a cat slashing its tail to show it is upset), keeping warm (like a husky laying in a circle and covering its nose), and probably most importantly, for balance when walking and running.
Despite the impression one gains, no so-called ‘true tail’ (remember, these have muscle) in humans has ever been found to contain bone or cartilage. And even though ‘pseudo-tails’ have been found to contain bone, they don’t contain vertebrae (Coyne’s statement that some human tails have vertebrae appears to be false from all accounts we have been able to assess). So all these caudal appendages do not closely resemble at all any real animal tail structurally. And no humans born with such an abnormality are able to use their caudal appendage for any of the functions above. Thus, the claim that humans are sometimes born with ‘fully functioning’ tails is misleading and false.
Physician and surgeon Dr. Michael Egnor (Vice-Chairman, Department of Neurological Surgery, and Director, Pediatric Neurosurgery, at State University of New York at Stony Brook) who has actual surgical experience with this type of condition stated the following about ‘human tails’:
None of them—and none of the reports in the literature that I know of—are actual tails.—Michael Egnor (Director, Pediatric Neurosurgery, State University of New York).
“None of them—and none of the reports in the literature that I know of—are actual tails. A tail has vertebrae, is a continuation of the coccyx, has developed muscles, nerves and other soft tissues, etc. The appendages described in the literature, and all of the appendages on which I have operated, are dysmorphic mesenchymal tissue, often epithelialized exophytic dermal sinus tracts, that bear a superficial resemblance to a ‘tail’. None have the structure of a tail, even in rudimentary form, and none of the ones I have operated on were attached to the coccyx in the way that a tail is.25
For those unfamiliar with medical terminology that means that these so-called human tails are an abnormality consisting of a specific group of malformed cells (typically those capable of developing into connective tissues) from the middle germ layer of an embryo that form a lesion protruding outward from the skin forming a ‘tail-like’ growth. It is this middle germ cell layer, by the way, the mesoderm, which normally develops into structures that include muscle, so the presence of muscle in the occasional one of these is no surprise.
Summary and conclusion
The human embryo never has a ‘tail’ at any stage.
Developmental abnormalities can rarely cause caudal appendages which have been loosely termed ‘tails’.
These can be of varying types, and sometimes contain innervated muscle, causing them to be ‘movable’.
Though this has unfortunately led to the term ‘true tails’, no babies are ever born with anything that could be remotely called a true tail, structurally and functionally.
Medical researchers and clinicians that are faced with these rare occurrences are increasingly stating the obvious (whether or not they believe in evolution) that none of them are tails. Rather, they affirm their status as various types of birth defects, unrelated to any ‘animal ancestry’.
People with these caudal appendage defects most often suffer from a variety of potentially serious medical conditions (and most of the appendages are not ‘easily removed’ as vocal evolutionists claim).
These defects clearly provide no support for the claim that humans have vestigial genes for tails encoded in our DNA.
Once again a Darwinian myth, in this case ‘atavistic’ or ‘throwback’ organs, has been shown to be scientifically false. Try as hard as they might, they still can’t make a monkey out of us.
Human tails - creation.com
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
I suppose these x-rays are 'fatty tissue' as well - from a Medical Journal - nothing to do with Creationism or Evolutionism - just plain & simple facts (something which we are all aware that you prefer to turn a blind eye to) ....
Human tails
Or even this one (which, for your convenience, even provides a Creationist link, before going on to debunk it).
The Human Coccyx and Appendix: A Study in Vestigiality
There is no shortage to evidential x-rays of human tails containing individual vertebrae. Denying their existence makes even more of a mockery of your baseless argument which, as usual, does not provide any level of independent thinking, but resorting to pasting someone else's twaddle without even stopping to check their claims. All it takes is a few simply chosen keywords on Google, and the evidence is there before you. Omit the words Creationist or Evolutionist etc, and just go to the basic FACTUALLY accurate sites which are not based on opinion for, or against evolution. They simply provide unbiased evidence, which you hate to see, so choose to ignore or worse still, deny.
Additional...
The section you chose to 'quote' from Laura Spinney, taken from her FULL article in New Scientist takes on a different view when viewed in its entirety. More from the Creationist art of quoting out of context.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... nger-need/
Human tails
Or even this one (which, for your convenience, even provides a Creationist link, before going on to debunk it).
The Human Coccyx and Appendix: A Study in Vestigiality
There is no shortage to evidential x-rays of human tails containing individual vertebrae. Denying their existence makes even more of a mockery of your baseless argument which, as usual, does not provide any level of independent thinking, but resorting to pasting someone else's twaddle without even stopping to check their claims. All it takes is a few simply chosen keywords on Google, and the evidence is there before you. Omit the words Creationist or Evolutionist etc, and just go to the basic FACTUALLY accurate sites which are not based on opinion for, or against evolution. They simply provide unbiased evidence, which you hate to see, so choose to ignore or worse still, deny.
Additional...
The section you chose to 'quote' from Laura Spinney, taken from her FULL article in New Scientist takes on a different view when viewed in its entirety. More from the Creationist art of quoting out of context.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... nger-need/
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1491003 wrote: I suppose these x-rays are 'fatty tissue' as well - from a Medical Journal - nothing to do with Creationism or Evolutionism - just plain & simple facts (something which we are all aware that you prefer to turn a blind eye to) ....
Human tails
Or even this one (which, for your convenience, even provides a Creationist link, before going on to debunk it).
The Human Coccyx and Appendix: A Study in Vestigiality
There is no shortage to evidential x-rays of human tails containing individual vertebrae. Denying their existence makes even more of a mockery of your baseless argument which, as usual, does not provide any level of independent thinking, but resorting to pasting someone else's twaddle without even stopping to check their claims. All it takes is a few simply chosen keywords on Google, and the evidence is there before you. Omit the words Creationist or Evolutionist etc, and just go to the basic FACTUALLY accurate sites which are not based on opinion for, or against evolution. They simply provide unbiased evidence, which you hate to see, so choose to ignore or worse still, deny.
Additional...
The section you chose to 'quote' from Laura Spinney, taken from her FULL article in New Scientist takes on a different view when viewed in its entirety. More from the Creationist art of quoting out of context.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... nger-need/
Human tails and fairy tales
Have there really been people with functioning tails, and if so, are they vestigial?
Illustration by Arcadian, wikipedia.com
How do you respond to people that try to prove human evolution by their tailbones that protrude from the backside.
There is an x-ray of a baby with a mutated tailbone that is apparently longer than a normal spine. In fact that x-ray shows a normal healthy spine, as admitted in the original research paper by Bar-Maor et al. from which that x-ray image (Figure 3 in the paper) was taken. Doubtless other readers of that webpage will have gained the same incorrect impression that you (and I, at first) got, namely that there exist people whose coccyxes (or ‘tailbones’) are longer than normal and form the core of a protruding and movable appendage, i.e. a functioning tail. This turned out not to be the case. And as a modern embryology textbook notes, ‘Rarely a caudal appendage is found at birth. Such structures are of varied origin (some are teratomata); they practically never contain skeletal elements and are in no sense tails.’
Caudal appendages occur in around 1 to 3 people per thousand. Most consist of skin and fatty tissue, and are located 1.5 centimetres from the midline of the back. Many are removed surgically shortly after birth.
The x-ray that appears on the TalkOrigins webpage is of Child 3, who had a healthy, well developed coccyx. Being soft tissue, Child 3’s benign caudal appendage does not appear in the x-ray, except perhaps to the trained expert eye. What does appear is the normal healthy coccyx, albeit of only three bones—most of us have four coccygeal vertebrae; a few percent of people have five and a few percent have three.
In the past, bolstered by the idea that this organ was vestigial and unneeded, surgeons would sometimes remove a person’s coccyx peremptorily (as was once done routinely with tonsils). But this results in severe problems for the patient, because the coccyx serves as a crucial anchor point for various important muscle groups. Victims of coccygectomy (tailbone removal) in the past have had as a consequence difficulty sitting down and standing up, difficulty giving birth, and difficulty getting to the toilet in time. Nowadays, coccygectomies are only performed as an extreme last resort, and involve reattachment elsewhere of the crucial muscles.
Even if there were/are several extra incipient caudal vertebrae that disappear before birth, such structures could have a purpose unrelated to that of vertebrae in grown people. Several examples are known of organs appearing and then disappearing during embryonic development. Generally the organs involved seem to play a structural role in the development of parts of the body. For example embryonic baleen whales have teeth which serve as a sort of scaffolding for the growth of their massive jaws, but these teeth disappear by the time they are born. Grown baleen whales are filter-feeders, with baleen and no teeth.
Several sorts of anatomical anomalies are caused by developmental processes finishing up earlier than usual, or continuing on for longer than usual. Having one fewer or one extra coccyx bones may be an example of this type of thing. This may be aberrant, or it may be within God’s original designed range of physical variety within humans. There are genes known as control / switch / signalling genes that regulate the number of digits, limbs, etc. that people and animals grow. Interfering with these signalling genes (dozens are involved) can result in non-typical numbers being produced. This signalling is a big-cast high-precision ballet of ‘intricate overlapping patterns’ and ‘unimaginable complexity’, resembling ‘a tangle of circuits that loop vertiginously across time and space’.
In contrast, there are some variations that are almost universally considered aberrant. From the ancient past to the current day there have been recorded cases of people with six fingers and/or six toes. Most creationist scientists think this is abnormal, rather than part of the original created variety within humankind.
In a high percentage of cases, people with a caudal appendage will also have another medical condition too, such as spina bifida, in which a vertebra is incompletely closed. People with caudal appendages, spina bifida, and other conditions are not regarded as more highly evolved. In fact many thousands of human genetic mutations have been identified that are causatively linked with crippling and lethal diseases, and yet the basic premise of neo-Darwinian evolution is that such mutations provide the material from which natural selection will bring forth upward evolution!
Note that even if there occurs or has occurred a case of a person having a movable tail-like caudal appendage containing bone, that does not mean the appendage is vestigial. And even if human caudal appendages were vestigial (which they are not) this would constitute degenerative change (loss of an organ) whereas evolution requires generative change, producing new types of organs that did not exist before.
These ‘even ifs’ indicate assumptions on the part of evolutionists. Caudal appendages and short and long coccyxes are facts—observable, measurable, and hence scientific facts. But the idea that they are vestigial (evolutionary ‘left-overs’ or ‘throwbacks’) is pure assumption. And the idea that a vestigial organ would be evidence of evolution is just fallacious logic. Evolution would require nascent (beginning development) organs of new types, not degenerate or aberrant organs of existing types.
Evolution would require nascent (beginning development) organs of new types, not degenerate or aberrant organs of existing types.
Both evolution and creation are worldviews / meta-theories / paradigms, used to explain the multifarious scientific facts. Many people don’t recognize this, but as philosopher Karl Popper in his autobiography stated, ‘I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme.’ The facts of science fit snugly with creation, while there is much data that clashes starkly with the idea of evolution. Nevertheless, historical events are ultimately unprovable scientifically, and so this leaves room for a large measure of faith in deciding what you will believe.
Incidentally, herein lies a big weakness of the Intelligent Design Movement—Since the past cannot be scientifically proven, and both paradigms purport to explain our existence, well, why not believe in evolution and millions of years? Since both paradigms can ‘explain’ all the data (albeit one badly and one well), then unless you have a true version of history (the Bible) with which to replace the false version of history (evolution and millions of years) there is no imperative to drop evolution and adopt design. Indeed, since design entails a Designer to whom we therefore belong, and to whom we are therefore accountable for our actions, there is a strong incentive to prefer naturalism (evolution), given our natural bent to do our own thing; to turn our backs on God.
Human tails and fairy tales - creation.com
Human tails
Or even this one (which, for your convenience, even provides a Creationist link, before going on to debunk it).
The Human Coccyx and Appendix: A Study in Vestigiality
There is no shortage to evidential x-rays of human tails containing individual vertebrae. Denying their existence makes even more of a mockery of your baseless argument which, as usual, does not provide any level of independent thinking, but resorting to pasting someone else's twaddle without even stopping to check their claims. All it takes is a few simply chosen keywords on Google, and the evidence is there before you. Omit the words Creationist or Evolutionist etc, and just go to the basic FACTUALLY accurate sites which are not based on opinion for, or against evolution. They simply provide unbiased evidence, which you hate to see, so choose to ignore or worse still, deny.
Additional...
The section you chose to 'quote' from Laura Spinney, taken from her FULL article in New Scientist takes on a different view when viewed in its entirety. More from the Creationist art of quoting out of context.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... nger-need/
Human tails and fairy tales
Have there really been people with functioning tails, and if so, are they vestigial?
Illustration by Arcadian, wikipedia.com
How do you respond to people that try to prove human evolution by their tailbones that protrude from the backside.
There is an x-ray of a baby with a mutated tailbone that is apparently longer than a normal spine. In fact that x-ray shows a normal healthy spine, as admitted in the original research paper by Bar-Maor et al. from which that x-ray image (Figure 3 in the paper) was taken. Doubtless other readers of that webpage will have gained the same incorrect impression that you (and I, at first) got, namely that there exist people whose coccyxes (or ‘tailbones’) are longer than normal and form the core of a protruding and movable appendage, i.e. a functioning tail. This turned out not to be the case. And as a modern embryology textbook notes, ‘Rarely a caudal appendage is found at birth. Such structures are of varied origin (some are teratomata); they practically never contain skeletal elements and are in no sense tails.’
Caudal appendages occur in around 1 to 3 people per thousand. Most consist of skin and fatty tissue, and are located 1.5 centimetres from the midline of the back. Many are removed surgically shortly after birth.
The x-ray that appears on the TalkOrigins webpage is of Child 3, who had a healthy, well developed coccyx. Being soft tissue, Child 3’s benign caudal appendage does not appear in the x-ray, except perhaps to the trained expert eye. What does appear is the normal healthy coccyx, albeit of only three bones—most of us have four coccygeal vertebrae; a few percent of people have five and a few percent have three.
In the past, bolstered by the idea that this organ was vestigial and unneeded, surgeons would sometimes remove a person’s coccyx peremptorily (as was once done routinely with tonsils). But this results in severe problems for the patient, because the coccyx serves as a crucial anchor point for various important muscle groups. Victims of coccygectomy (tailbone removal) in the past have had as a consequence difficulty sitting down and standing up, difficulty giving birth, and difficulty getting to the toilet in time. Nowadays, coccygectomies are only performed as an extreme last resort, and involve reattachment elsewhere of the crucial muscles.
Even if there were/are several extra incipient caudal vertebrae that disappear before birth, such structures could have a purpose unrelated to that of vertebrae in grown people. Several examples are known of organs appearing and then disappearing during embryonic development. Generally the organs involved seem to play a structural role in the development of parts of the body. For example embryonic baleen whales have teeth which serve as a sort of scaffolding for the growth of their massive jaws, but these teeth disappear by the time they are born. Grown baleen whales are filter-feeders, with baleen and no teeth.
Several sorts of anatomical anomalies are caused by developmental processes finishing up earlier than usual, or continuing on for longer than usual. Having one fewer or one extra coccyx bones may be an example of this type of thing. This may be aberrant, or it may be within God’s original designed range of physical variety within humans. There are genes known as control / switch / signalling genes that regulate the number of digits, limbs, etc. that people and animals grow. Interfering with these signalling genes (dozens are involved) can result in non-typical numbers being produced. This signalling is a big-cast high-precision ballet of ‘intricate overlapping patterns’ and ‘unimaginable complexity’, resembling ‘a tangle of circuits that loop vertiginously across time and space’.
In contrast, there are some variations that are almost universally considered aberrant. From the ancient past to the current day there have been recorded cases of people with six fingers and/or six toes. Most creationist scientists think this is abnormal, rather than part of the original created variety within humankind.
In a high percentage of cases, people with a caudal appendage will also have another medical condition too, such as spina bifida, in which a vertebra is incompletely closed. People with caudal appendages, spina bifida, and other conditions are not regarded as more highly evolved. In fact many thousands of human genetic mutations have been identified that are causatively linked with crippling and lethal diseases, and yet the basic premise of neo-Darwinian evolution is that such mutations provide the material from which natural selection will bring forth upward evolution!
Note that even if there occurs or has occurred a case of a person having a movable tail-like caudal appendage containing bone, that does not mean the appendage is vestigial. And even if human caudal appendages were vestigial (which they are not) this would constitute degenerative change (loss of an organ) whereas evolution requires generative change, producing new types of organs that did not exist before.
These ‘even ifs’ indicate assumptions on the part of evolutionists. Caudal appendages and short and long coccyxes are facts—observable, measurable, and hence scientific facts. But the idea that they are vestigial (evolutionary ‘left-overs’ or ‘throwbacks’) is pure assumption. And the idea that a vestigial organ would be evidence of evolution is just fallacious logic. Evolution would require nascent (beginning development) organs of new types, not degenerate or aberrant organs of existing types.
Evolution would require nascent (beginning development) organs of new types, not degenerate or aberrant organs of existing types.
Both evolution and creation are worldviews / meta-theories / paradigms, used to explain the multifarious scientific facts. Many people don’t recognize this, but as philosopher Karl Popper in his autobiography stated, ‘I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme.’ The facts of science fit snugly with creation, while there is much data that clashes starkly with the idea of evolution. Nevertheless, historical events are ultimately unprovable scientifically, and so this leaves room for a large measure of faith in deciding what you will believe.
Incidentally, herein lies a big weakness of the Intelligent Design Movement—Since the past cannot be scientifically proven, and both paradigms purport to explain our existence, well, why not believe in evolution and millions of years? Since both paradigms can ‘explain’ all the data (albeit one badly and one well), then unless you have a true version of history (the Bible) with which to replace the false version of history (evolution and millions of years) there is no imperative to drop evolution and adopt design. Indeed, since design entails a Designer to whom we therefore belong, and to whom we are therefore accountable for our actions, there is a strong incentive to prefer naturalism (evolution), given our natural bent to do our own thing; to turn our backs on God.
Human tails and fairy tales - creation.com
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
There's little of value in those sites you quote
Here's a challenge for you.
If you really believe that "the facts of science fit snugly with Creationism", show us, using scientific publications alone, without resorting to the creationist sites.
Show us proper science and not what creationists think is science.
Do it, if you can, by not using out of context quotes but only provide conventional scientific works.
Here's a challenge for you.
If you really believe that "the facts of science fit snugly with Creationism", show us, using scientific publications alone, without resorting to the creationist sites.
Show us proper science and not what creationists think is science.
Do it, if you can, by not using out of context quotes but only provide conventional scientific works.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1491014 wrote: There's little of value in those sites you quote
Here's a challenge for you.
If you really believe that "the facts of science fit snugly with Creationism", show us, using scientific publications alone, without resorting to the creationist sites.
Show us proper science and not what creationists think is science.
Do it, if you can, by not using out of context quotes but only provide conventional scientific works.
I have been showing how science disproves evolution for years. Review!
Here's a challenge for you.
If you really believe that "the facts of science fit snugly with Creationism", show us, using scientific publications alone, without resorting to the creationist sites.
Show us proper science and not what creationists think is science.
Do it, if you can, by not using out of context quotes but only provide conventional scientific works.
I have been showing how science disproves evolution for years. Review!
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1491015 wrote: I have been showing how science disproves evolution for years. Review!
You have done nothing of the sort. You have been pasting from Creation sites or from Brown's book. What you have shown is a good demonstration on how you read our posts ie with your blinkers on
My challenge was for you to demonstrate your evidence that science disproves evolution by using purely conventional, peer reviewed journals and publications.
My challenge was for you not to use any creationist sites or publications.
If the "facts of science fit snugly with creationism", you should have no problem
You have done nothing of the sort. You have been pasting from Creation sites or from Brown's book. What you have shown is a good demonstration on how you read our posts ie with your blinkers on
My challenge was for you to demonstrate your evidence that science disproves evolution by using purely conventional, peer reviewed journals and publications.
My challenge was for you not to use any creationist sites or publications.
If the "facts of science fit snugly with creationism", you should have no problem
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1491017 wrote: You have done nothing of the sort. You have been pasting from Creation sites or from Brown's book. What you have shown is a good demonstration on how you read our posts ie with your blinkers on
My challenge was for you to demonstrate your evidence that science disproves evolution by using purely conventional, peer reviewed journals and publications.
My challenge was for you not to use any creationist sites or publications.
If the "facts of science fit snugly with creationism", you should have no problem
I have been showing how science disproves evolution for years using the facts of science. Review!
My challenge was for you to demonstrate your evidence that science disproves evolution by using purely conventional, peer reviewed journals and publications.
My challenge was for you not to use any creationist sites or publications.
If the "facts of science fit snugly with creationism", you should have no problem
I have been showing how science disproves evolution for years using the facts of science. Review!
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1491019 wrote: I have been showing how science disproves evolution for years using the facts of science. Review!
There you go again, being obtuse.
You know precisely what I mean, so don't pretend that you have posted that which I have asked. You haven't.
There you go again, being obtuse.
You know precisely what I mean, so don't pretend that you have posted that which I have asked. You haven't.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1491019 wrote: I have been showing how science disproves evolution for years using the facts of science. Review!
Sorry, mate, but taking statements made by people who may be scientists, or science oriented journalists, completely out of context, and using them to claim support for unscientific statements is not science. That is all you have ever done, and actually, you have not even done THAT. You simply copy Mr Brown's writings, or the the attribution list from Brown's book, and post it without even the slightest attempt at explaining how these attributions support your (or rather, Mr Brown's) claims.
Sorry, mate, but taking statements made by people who may be scientists, or science oriented journalists, completely out of context, and using them to claim support for unscientific statements is not science. That is all you have ever done, and actually, you have not even done THAT. You simply copy Mr Brown's writings, or the the attribution list from Brown's book, and post it without even the slightest attempt at explaining how these attributions support your (or rather, Mr Brown's) claims.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1491023 wrote: Sorry, mate, but taking statements made by people who may be scientists, or science oriented journalists, completely out of context, and using them to claim support for unscientific statements is not science. That is all you have ever done, and actually, you have not even done THAT. You simply copy Mr Brown's writings, or the the attribution list from Brown's book, and post it without even the slightest attempt at explaining how these attributions support your (or rather, Mr Brown's) claims.
Show us how the quotes change the contexts.
Brown's conclusions are confirmed by the following scientists:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Show us how the quotes change the contexts.
Brown's conclusions are confirmed by the following scientists:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1491025 wrote: Show us how the quotes change the contexts.
Brown's confusions are confirmed by the following scientists:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Well, you got SOMETHING right in that post.
Sorry, but, we have been around this so many times. Those statements, completely out of context, support nothing.
Whoever compiled those knows nothing.
Brown's confusions are confirmed by the following scientists:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Well, you got SOMETHING right in that post.
Sorry, but, we have been around this so many times. Those statements, completely out of context, support nothing.
Whoever compiled those knows nothing.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Quote Originally Posted by Pahu
Show us how the quotes change the contexts.
Brown's conclusions are confirmed by the following scientists:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
LarsMac;1491026 wrote: Well, you got SOMETHING right in that post.
Sorry, but, we have been around this so many times. Those statements, completely out of context, support nothing.
Whoever compiled those knows nothing.
Oops. Sometimes my automatic spell checker replaces my intended word with another one. I usually catch them, but missed this one. Of course the word should be conclusions.
Show us how the quotes change the contexts.
Brown's conclusions are confirmed by the following scientists:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
LarsMac;1491026 wrote: Well, you got SOMETHING right in that post.
Sorry, but, we have been around this so many times. Those statements, completely out of context, support nothing.
Whoever compiled those knows nothing.
Oops. Sometimes my automatic spell checker replaces my intended word with another one. I usually catch them, but missed this one. Of course the word should be conclusions.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
I think its a Freudian slip
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1491039 wrote: I think its a Freudian slip
Probably his most accurate post yet.
Once again he seems to think the 2 unrelated lists seem to prove something, without providing any referral points. He doesn't seem to think that anyone is capable of providing the same names & publications to prove anything. For example, the following names support my claim that Brown is a charlatan:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh etc.
The above scientists were quoted to decry Walt Brown's fantasies in the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
You see - simple proof.
As for him providing quotes from Creationist sites. To be precise, HE isn't providing quote from any sites at all - he is merely copying links provided by Walt Brown. He has no other sources. As has already been proven, when anyone else provides him with independent sources, he refuses to even look at them.
The claim in his last pasting that only 1 - 3 in a thousand have such a mutation is not strictly true. It's the other way round. The so called 'mutation' is the original version. Claims that the vertebrae are barely visible, and even then by the trained eye is also obviously false, as the links that I provided demonstrate. Even Pahu would be able to see them - and he's far from being trained (apart from by his master, Dolt Brown) - that is, he might be able to see them if he could bring himself to look.
Take one of the Creationists favourite phrases regarding their acceptable level of Evolution - when they refer to "Kinds". They insist a dog remains a dog, and a cat remains a cat. Well, how about a Manx cat? A Manx cat has no tail - or does that make it a different "Kind", and not a cat at all? Humans are clearly in the Primate "Kind". Therefore, why should there be any problem in accepting that we once had tails?
Probably his most accurate post yet.
Once again he seems to think the 2 unrelated lists seem to prove something, without providing any referral points. He doesn't seem to think that anyone is capable of providing the same names & publications to prove anything. For example, the following names support my claim that Brown is a charlatan:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh etc.
The above scientists were quoted to decry Walt Brown's fantasies in the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
You see - simple proof.
As for him providing quotes from Creationist sites. To be precise, HE isn't providing quote from any sites at all - he is merely copying links provided by Walt Brown. He has no other sources. As has already been proven, when anyone else provides him with independent sources, he refuses to even look at them.
The claim in his last pasting that only 1 - 3 in a thousand have such a mutation is not strictly true. It's the other way round. The so called 'mutation' is the original version. Claims that the vertebrae are barely visible, and even then by the trained eye is also obviously false, as the links that I provided demonstrate. Even Pahu would be able to see them - and he's far from being trained (apart from by his master, Dolt Brown) - that is, he might be able to see them if he could bring himself to look.
Take one of the Creationists favourite phrases regarding their acceptable level of Evolution - when they refer to "Kinds". They insist a dog remains a dog, and a cat remains a cat. Well, how about a Manx cat? A Manx cat has no tail - or does that make it a different "Kind", and not a cat at all? Humans are clearly in the Primate "Kind". Therefore, why should there be any problem in accepting that we once had tails?
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1491048 wrote:
The claim in his last pasting that only 1 - 3 in a thousand have such a mutation is not strictly true. It's the other way round. The so called 'mutation' is the original version. Claims that the vertebrae are barely visible, and even then by the trained eye is also obviously false, as the links that I provided demonstrate. Even Pahu would be able to see them - and he's far from being trained (apart from by his master, Dolt Brown) - that is, he might be able to see them if he could bring himself to look.
It is encouraging to see you admit Walt Brown is trained. As for mutations, here are the facts [note, they are not from Brown]:
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT MUTATIONS: 1
Reputable scientists tell us that, contrary to what the evolutionists say, mutations cannot produce trans-species changes. Therefore, mutations cannot produce evolutionary change. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENTS: Scientists Speak about Mutations: 1
Introduction: Evolutionists tell us that natural selection and mutations are the only possible means of cross-species changes
Mutations Are Extremely Rare: They almost never occur
Mutations Are Nearly Always Harmful: Some assume that beneficial ones may occur, but they have never been found
One Mutation Would Cause Great Damage: It would cripple or weaken the entire system
An Organism Is Useless until It Has All Its Parts: So an occasional mutational disruption could accomplish nothing
This material is excerpted from the book, MUTATIONS (see BOOKSTPRE). An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Mutations.
INTRODUCTION
Evolutionists tell us that natural selection and mutations are the only possible means of cross-species changes.
"The process of mutations is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution."—*T. Dobzhansky, in American Scientist, 45 (1957), p. 385.
"The evolution of life on Earth is a product of random events, chance mutations, and individually unlikely steps."—*Carl Sagan, The Cosmic Connection (1973), p. 43.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation, (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—*Colin Patterson [senior paleontologist at the British museum of Natural History, London], The Listener.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology."—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
MUTATIONS ARE EXTREMELY RARE
They almost never occur.
"Mutations rarely occur. Most genes mutate only once in 100,000 generations or more. Researchers estimate that a human gene may remain stable for 2,500,000 years."—*World Book Encyclopedia, 1966 Edition.
"It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations, in higher organisms, between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation."—*Francisco J. Ayala, "Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology," in Philosophy of Science, March 1970, p. 3.
"Although mutations is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event."—F.J. Ayala, "Mechanism of Evolution," Scientific American, September 1978, p. 63.
MUTATIONS ARE NEARLY ALWAYS HARMFUL
Some assume that beneficial ones may occur, but they have never been found.
"But mutations are found to be of a random nature, as far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences."—*H.J. Muller, "Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material," in American Scientist, January 1950, p. 35.
"A proportion of favorable mutations of one in a thousand does not sound much, but is probably generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the organism from living at all, and the great majority of the rest throw the machinery slightly out gear."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 41.
"One would expect that any interference, with such a complicated piece of chemical machinery as the genetic constitution would result in damage. And, in fact, this is so: The great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effects on the organism."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 37.
"The mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect . . All mutations seem to be of the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organism."—*C.P. Martin, "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," in American Scientist, 41 (1953), p. 103.
"A majority of mutations, both those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations produce deteriorations to the viability, hereditary disease, and monstrosities. Such changes, it would seem, can hardly serve as evolutionary building blocks."—*T. Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of the Species (1955), p. 73.
ONE MUTATION WOULD CAUSE GREAT DAMAGE
It would cripple or weaken the entire system.
"An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one's watch or one's radio set will seldom make it work better."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky [a geneticist], Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126.
"We could still be sure, on theoretical grounds, that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning human body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair—just as a random interchange of connections [wires] in a television set is not likely to improve the picture."—*J.F. Crow, "Genetic Effects of Radiation," in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 14 (1958), pp. 19-20.
"Moreover, despite the fact that a mutation is a discrete, discontinuous effect of the cellular chromosome or gene level, its effects are modified by interactions in the whole genetic system of an individual.
"This universal interaction has been described, in deliberately exaggerated form, in this statement: Every character of an organism is affected by all genes, and every gene affects all other characters. It is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional integration of the genotype as a whole."—*Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p. 164 [emphasis his].
"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [fruit fly] show deterioration, breakdown, and disappearance of some organs."—*T. Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics and Man (1955), p. 105.
"It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidently introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation . . Good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad."—*H.J. Muller, "How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution," in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 11 (1955), p. 331.
AN ORGANISM IS USELESS UNTIL IT HAS ALL ITS PARTS
So an occasional mutational disruption could accomplish nothing.
"In postulating his theory of syntropy, Szent-Gyorgyi, perhaps unintentionally, brings forth one of the strongest arguments for Creationism—the fact that a body organ is useless until it is completely perfected. The hypothesized law of `survival of the fittest' would generally select against any mutations until a large number of mutations have already occurred to produce a complete and functional structure; after which natural selection would then theoretically select for the organism with the completed organ."—Jerry Bergman, "Albert Szent-Gyorgyi's Theory of Syntropy," in Up with Creation (1978), p. 337 [quoting *Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, The Living State: With Remarks on Cancer (1972)].
"One might think that mutants that cause only a minor impairment are unimportant. But this is not true for the following reason: A mutant that is very harmful usually causes early death or senility. Thus the mutant gene is quickly eliminated from the population . . Since minor mutations can thus cause as much harm in the long run as major ones, and occur more frequently, it follows that most of the mutational damage in a population is due to the accumulation of minor changes."—*J.F. Crow, "Genetic Effects of Radiation," in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 1958, p. 20.
"The probabilities that a mutation will survive or eventually spread in the course of evolution tend to vary inversely with the extent of its somatic effects. Most mutations with large effects are lethal at an early stage for the individual in which they occur and hence have zero probability of spreading."—*George Gaylord Simpson, "Uniformitarianism: An Inquiry into Principle Theory and Method in Geohistory and Biochemistry," Chapter 2, in *Max Hecht and *William C. Steeres, ed., Essays in Evolution and Genetics (1970), p. 80.
"Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but the basic principles of scientific explanation."—*A. Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (1975), p. 129.
"Most biological reactions are chain reactions. To interact in a chain, these precisely built molecules must fit together most precisely, as the cog wheels of a Swiss watch do. But if this is so, then how can such a system develop at all? For if any one of the specific cog wheels in these chains is changed, then the whole system must simply become inoperative. Saying it can be improved by random mutation of one link . . [is] like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and thus bending one of its wheels or axes. To get a better watch, all the wheels must be changed simultaneously to make a good fit again."—*Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, "Drive in Living Matter to Perfect Itself," Synthesis I, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 18 (1977) [winner of two Nobel Prizes for scientific research and Director of Research at the Institute for Muscle Research in Massachusetts].
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT MUTATIONS - 1
The claim in his last pasting that only 1 - 3 in a thousand have such a mutation is not strictly true. It's the other way round. The so called 'mutation' is the original version. Claims that the vertebrae are barely visible, and even then by the trained eye is also obviously false, as the links that I provided demonstrate. Even Pahu would be able to see them - and he's far from being trained (apart from by his master, Dolt Brown) - that is, he might be able to see them if he could bring himself to look.
It is encouraging to see you admit Walt Brown is trained. As for mutations, here are the facts [note, they are not from Brown]:
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT MUTATIONS: 1
Reputable scientists tell us that, contrary to what the evolutionists say, mutations cannot produce trans-species changes. Therefore, mutations cannot produce evolutionary change. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENTS: Scientists Speak about Mutations: 1
Introduction: Evolutionists tell us that natural selection and mutations are the only possible means of cross-species changes
Mutations Are Extremely Rare: They almost never occur
Mutations Are Nearly Always Harmful: Some assume that beneficial ones may occur, but they have never been found
One Mutation Would Cause Great Damage: It would cripple or weaken the entire system
An Organism Is Useless until It Has All Its Parts: So an occasional mutational disruption could accomplish nothing
This material is excerpted from the book, MUTATIONS (see BOOKSTPRE). An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Mutations.
INTRODUCTION
Evolutionists tell us that natural selection and mutations are the only possible means of cross-species changes.
"The process of mutations is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution."—*T. Dobzhansky, in American Scientist, 45 (1957), p. 385.
"The evolution of life on Earth is a product of random events, chance mutations, and individually unlikely steps."—*Carl Sagan, The Cosmic Connection (1973), p. 43.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation, (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—*Colin Patterson [senior paleontologist at the British museum of Natural History, London], The Listener.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology."—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
MUTATIONS ARE EXTREMELY RARE
They almost never occur.
"Mutations rarely occur. Most genes mutate only once in 100,000 generations or more. Researchers estimate that a human gene may remain stable for 2,500,000 years."—*World Book Encyclopedia, 1966 Edition.
"It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations, in higher organisms, between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation."—*Francisco J. Ayala, "Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology," in Philosophy of Science, March 1970, p. 3.
"Although mutations is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event."—F.J. Ayala, "Mechanism of Evolution," Scientific American, September 1978, p. 63.
MUTATIONS ARE NEARLY ALWAYS HARMFUL
Some assume that beneficial ones may occur, but they have never been found.
"But mutations are found to be of a random nature, as far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences."—*H.J. Muller, "Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material," in American Scientist, January 1950, p. 35.
"A proportion of favorable mutations of one in a thousand does not sound much, but is probably generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the organism from living at all, and the great majority of the rest throw the machinery slightly out gear."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 41.
"One would expect that any interference, with such a complicated piece of chemical machinery as the genetic constitution would result in damage. And, in fact, this is so: The great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effects on the organism."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 37.
"The mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect . . All mutations seem to be of the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organism."—*C.P. Martin, "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," in American Scientist, 41 (1953), p. 103.
"A majority of mutations, both those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations produce deteriorations to the viability, hereditary disease, and monstrosities. Such changes, it would seem, can hardly serve as evolutionary building blocks."—*T. Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of the Species (1955), p. 73.
ONE MUTATION WOULD CAUSE GREAT DAMAGE
It would cripple or weaken the entire system.
"An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one's watch or one's radio set will seldom make it work better."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky [a geneticist], Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126.
"We could still be sure, on theoretical grounds, that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning human body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair—just as a random interchange of connections [wires] in a television set is not likely to improve the picture."—*J.F. Crow, "Genetic Effects of Radiation," in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 14 (1958), pp. 19-20.
"Moreover, despite the fact that a mutation is a discrete, discontinuous effect of the cellular chromosome or gene level, its effects are modified by interactions in the whole genetic system of an individual.
"This universal interaction has been described, in deliberately exaggerated form, in this statement: Every character of an organism is affected by all genes, and every gene affects all other characters. It is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional integration of the genotype as a whole."—*Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p. 164 [emphasis his].
"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [fruit fly] show deterioration, breakdown, and disappearance of some organs."—*T. Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics and Man (1955), p. 105.
"It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidently introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation . . Good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad."—*H.J. Muller, "How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution," in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 11 (1955), p. 331.
AN ORGANISM IS USELESS UNTIL IT HAS ALL ITS PARTS
So an occasional mutational disruption could accomplish nothing.
"In postulating his theory of syntropy, Szent-Gyorgyi, perhaps unintentionally, brings forth one of the strongest arguments for Creationism—the fact that a body organ is useless until it is completely perfected. The hypothesized law of `survival of the fittest' would generally select against any mutations until a large number of mutations have already occurred to produce a complete and functional structure; after which natural selection would then theoretically select for the organism with the completed organ."—Jerry Bergman, "Albert Szent-Gyorgyi's Theory of Syntropy," in Up with Creation (1978), p. 337 [quoting *Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, The Living State: With Remarks on Cancer (1972)].
"One might think that mutants that cause only a minor impairment are unimportant. But this is not true for the following reason: A mutant that is very harmful usually causes early death or senility. Thus the mutant gene is quickly eliminated from the population . . Since minor mutations can thus cause as much harm in the long run as major ones, and occur more frequently, it follows that most of the mutational damage in a population is due to the accumulation of minor changes."—*J.F. Crow, "Genetic Effects of Radiation," in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 1958, p. 20.
"The probabilities that a mutation will survive or eventually spread in the course of evolution tend to vary inversely with the extent of its somatic effects. Most mutations with large effects are lethal at an early stage for the individual in which they occur and hence have zero probability of spreading."—*George Gaylord Simpson, "Uniformitarianism: An Inquiry into Principle Theory and Method in Geohistory and Biochemistry," Chapter 2, in *Max Hecht and *William C. Steeres, ed., Essays in Evolution and Genetics (1970), p. 80.
"Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but the basic principles of scientific explanation."—*A. Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (1975), p. 129.
"Most biological reactions are chain reactions. To interact in a chain, these precisely built molecules must fit together most precisely, as the cog wheels of a Swiss watch do. But if this is so, then how can such a system develop at all? For if any one of the specific cog wheels in these chains is changed, then the whole system must simply become inoperative. Saying it can be improved by random mutation of one link . . [is] like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and thus bending one of its wheels or axes. To get a better watch, all the wheels must be changed simultaneously to make a good fit again."—*Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, "Drive in Living Matter to Perfect Itself," Synthesis I, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 18 (1977) [winner of two Nobel Prizes for scientific research and Director of Research at the Institute for Muscle Research in Massachusetts].
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT MUTATIONS - 1
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1491058 wrote: It is encouraging to see you admit Walt Brown is trained. As for mutations, here are the facts [note, they are not from Brown]:
No but it is from a creationist publication. You have failed again to provide the evidence using the criteria I asked - and we are all waiting for
We understand if you say you can't but severely restricting your reading and research material to purely creationist sites, you understand, limits your ability to argue from a scientific standpoint.
You are anchored by the dogma that your restrictions provide.
Free thinking and further reading are the way forward
No but it is from a creationist publication. You have failed again to provide the evidence using the criteria I asked - and we are all waiting for
We understand if you say you can't but severely restricting your reading and research material to purely creationist sites, you understand, limits your ability to argue from a scientific standpoint.
You are anchored by the dogma that your restrictions provide.
Free thinking and further reading are the way forward
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
�*�*
Index Fossils 3
Figure*29: 70,000,000-Year-Old Fish? Thought to be extinct for 70,000,000 years, the coelacanth [SEE la
kanth] was first caught in 1938, deep in the Indian Ocean, northwest of Madagascar. Rewards were then offered for coelacanths, so hundreds were caught and sold. In 1998, they were also found off the coast of Indonesia (c). How could the ancestors of these coelacanths leave no fossils for 70,000,000 years?
Before coelacanths were caught, evolutionists incorrectly believed that the coelacanth had lungs, a large brain, and four bottom fins about to evolve into legs (d). Evolutionists reasoned that the coelacanth, or a similar fish, crawled out of a shallow sea and filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged, land animal. Millions of students have been erroneously taught that this fish was the ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals, including people (Was your ancestor a fish?).
c. Peter Forey, “A Home from Home for Coelacanths, Nature, Vol.*395, 24 September 1998, pp.*319–320.
Since the above discovery near Indonesia in 1998, most coelacanths are being caught off the coast of northern Tanzania, 500 miles north of what was thought to be their old habitats. [See Constance Holden, “Saving the Coelacanth, Science, Vol.*316, 8 June 2007, p.*1401.]
d. “Zoologists originally thought that the paired fins of coelacanths and the fossil lobe-fins functioned as true limbs, as props to lever the fish against the solid substrate of the bottom sand or against rocks. Keith S. Thomson, Living Fossil: The Story of the Coelacanth (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Ltd., 1991), p. 160.
“...much attention has been focused on their fins in the hope that they will tell more about how fins became limbs. Ommanney, p. 74.
“For the coelacanth was a member of a very ancient class of fishes which was supposed to have disappeared some 70 million years ago. This great group of fishes, called crossopterygians, flourished during that decisive era in the history of the earth—when the fish, taking on legs and lungs, went forth to conquer the continents. Jacques Millot, “The Coelacanth, Scientific American, Vol. 193, December 1955, p. 34.
Dr. Jacques Millot, who headed many detailed studies of freshly caught coelacanths, still held out hope as of 1955:
“Perhaps their stalked fins permit them to creep along the rocks like seals. Ibid., p. 38.
This myth was buried only after Dr. Hans Fricke’s team observed coelacanths in their natural habitat in 1987. Their bottom fins have nothing to do with legs or creeping. Why did Millot ignore the facts he knew best? The coelacanth, he thought, solved a big problem. In 1955, Millot wrote:
“One of the great problems of evolution has been to find anatomical links between the fishes and their land-invading descendants...For a long time evolutionists were troubled by this major gap between fishes and the amphibians. But the gap has now been bridged by studies of ancient fishes, and this is where the coelacanth comes in. Ibid., pp. 35–36.
Later (1987), after studying live coelacanths, the scientific world learned that Millot was wrong. The coelacanth did not bridge this gap. Therefore, the fish-to-amphibian problem is back.
“He [J. L. B. Smith] was able to report [in the journal Nature] that, like the lungfishes, the fish had an air bladder or lung (on the basis of the taxidermist’s report of the discarded viscera), which was a median rather than paired structure. Thomson, Living Fossil, p. 39. [It is now recognized that the discarded “bag was not a lung, but an oil-filled swimming bladder. W.B.]
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Index Fossils 3
Figure*29: 70,000,000-Year-Old Fish? Thought to be extinct for 70,000,000 years, the coelacanth [SEE la
kanth] was first caught in 1938, deep in the Indian Ocean, northwest of Madagascar. Rewards were then offered for coelacanths, so hundreds were caught and sold. In 1998, they were also found off the coast of Indonesia (c). How could the ancestors of these coelacanths leave no fossils for 70,000,000 years?
Before coelacanths were caught, evolutionists incorrectly believed that the coelacanth had lungs, a large brain, and four bottom fins about to evolve into legs (d). Evolutionists reasoned that the coelacanth, or a similar fish, crawled out of a shallow sea and filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged, land animal. Millions of students have been erroneously taught that this fish was the ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals, including people (Was your ancestor a fish?).
c. Peter Forey, “A Home from Home for Coelacanths, Nature, Vol.*395, 24 September 1998, pp.*319–320.
Since the above discovery near Indonesia in 1998, most coelacanths are being caught off the coast of northern Tanzania, 500 miles north of what was thought to be their old habitats. [See Constance Holden, “Saving the Coelacanth, Science, Vol.*316, 8 June 2007, p.*1401.]
d. “Zoologists originally thought that the paired fins of coelacanths and the fossil lobe-fins functioned as true limbs, as props to lever the fish against the solid substrate of the bottom sand or against rocks. Keith S. Thomson, Living Fossil: The Story of the Coelacanth (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Ltd., 1991), p. 160.
“...much attention has been focused on their fins in the hope that they will tell more about how fins became limbs. Ommanney, p. 74.
“For the coelacanth was a member of a very ancient class of fishes which was supposed to have disappeared some 70 million years ago. This great group of fishes, called crossopterygians, flourished during that decisive era in the history of the earth—when the fish, taking on legs and lungs, went forth to conquer the continents. Jacques Millot, “The Coelacanth, Scientific American, Vol. 193, December 1955, p. 34.
Dr. Jacques Millot, who headed many detailed studies of freshly caught coelacanths, still held out hope as of 1955:
“Perhaps their stalked fins permit them to creep along the rocks like seals. Ibid., p. 38.
This myth was buried only after Dr. Hans Fricke’s team observed coelacanths in their natural habitat in 1987. Their bottom fins have nothing to do with legs or creeping. Why did Millot ignore the facts he knew best? The coelacanth, he thought, solved a big problem. In 1955, Millot wrote:
“One of the great problems of evolution has been to find anatomical links between the fishes and their land-invading descendants...For a long time evolutionists were troubled by this major gap between fishes and the amphibians. But the gap has now been bridged by studies of ancient fishes, and this is where the coelacanth comes in. Ibid., pp. 35–36.
Later (1987), after studying live coelacanths, the scientific world learned that Millot was wrong. The coelacanth did not bridge this gap. Therefore, the fish-to-amphibian problem is back.
“He [J. L. B. Smith] was able to report [in the journal Nature] that, like the lungfishes, the fish had an air bladder or lung (on the basis of the taxidermist’s report of the discarded viscera), which was a median rather than paired structure. Thomson, Living Fossil, p. 39. [It is now recognized that the discarded “bag was not a lung, but an oil-filled swimming bladder. W.B.]
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Quote Originally Posted by Pahu
It is encouraging to see you admit Walt Brown is trained. As for mutations, here are the facts [note, they are not from Brown]:
Snowfire;1491060 wrote: No but it is from a creationist publication. You have failed again to provide the evidence using the criteria I asked - and we are all waiting for
We understand if you say you can't but severely restricting your reading and research material to purely creationist sites, you understand, limits your ability to argue from a scientific standpoint.
None of the scientists quoted were creationists.
It is encouraging to see you admit Walt Brown is trained. As for mutations, here are the facts [note, they are not from Brown]:
Snowfire;1491060 wrote: No but it is from a creationist publication. You have failed again to provide the evidence using the criteria I asked - and we are all waiting for
We understand if you say you can't but severely restricting your reading and research material to purely creationist sites, you understand, limits your ability to argue from a scientific standpoint.
None of the scientists quoted were creationists.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1491068 wrote: Quote Originally Posted by Pahu
It is encouraging to see you admit Walt Brown is trained. As for mutations, here are the facts [note, they are not from Brown]:
None of the scientists quoted were creationists.
None of them (or at least very, very few) are actually consciously making statements in support of Mr Brown's speculations.
It is encouraging to see you admit Walt Brown is trained. As for mutations, here are the facts [note, they are not from Brown]:
None of the scientists quoted were creationists.
None of them (or at least very, very few) are actually consciously making statements in support of Mr Brown's speculations.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1491069 wrote: None of them (or at least very, very few) are actually consciously making statements in support of Mr Brown's speculations.
Do you doubt what they say is true?
Do you doubt what they say is true?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Your powers of understanding are appalling. As bad as the so called science you follow.
You are hoping that I might get fed up and ignore the fact you are just fudging because you just cannot deliver what we ask.
Its embarrassing that you should do so but not unexpected. Its what you have done since you first posted.
I'll ask again. It's a simple request.
Provide the evidence for your creationist theories using conventional, peer reviewed journals, sites and publications. Out of context quotes from accepted scientists is not acceptable. Mass quoting from Creationists sites and Brown's book is also not acceptable. Please do employ a little joined up thinking and if the parameters of the challenge are difficult to grasp, please say so.
The challenge is very straightforward
You are hoping that I might get fed up and ignore the fact you are just fudging because you just cannot deliver what we ask.
Its embarrassing that you should do so but not unexpected. Its what you have done since you first posted.
I'll ask again. It's a simple request.
Provide the evidence for your creationist theories using conventional, peer reviewed journals, sites and publications. Out of context quotes from accepted scientists is not acceptable. Mass quoting from Creationists sites and Brown's book is also not acceptable. Please do employ a little joined up thinking and if the parameters of the challenge are difficult to grasp, please say so.
The challenge is very straightforward
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1491058 wrote: It is encouraging to see you admit Walt Brown is trained.
If you had read my words (and there weren't many of them) I never said anything of the sort. I refered to YOU being far from trained, apart from BY Dolt Brown - much like a Chimpanzee training another Chimpanzee.
As for mutations, here are the facts [note, they are not from Brown]:
First of all, they are not facts. They are unfounded claims.
Secondly, part of what I said (if you had bothered to read it) was not that Brown made the quotes, but that he was the one that provided the links to them. Otherwise you wouldn't have been able to find them as (a) you seem to be incapable of being able to use Google & (b) you have a morbid dread of finding anything that disagrees with your Lord & Master, the Almighty Dolt Brown.
As for the ceolocanth. That is an excellent example, as it reinforces the concept of evolution. Creationists are always bringing up the pointless arguments of things like "why aren't these fossil creatures (eg trilobytes etc) still be found". The ceolocanth used to be included in this irrelevant argument - until one was found. Then, they had to immediately change their argument. This is typical of the Creationist thinking. They make the rules before they even start to play the game, then as soon as someone beats them, using their own rules, they decide to change the rules, as demonstrated by Wat Brown's own Wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Brow ... tionist%29
You will see that throughout the entry it is stating how he has no recognition among the scientific world, makes claims that no-one will debate him, but sets down rules to favour him, then chickens out. He has a single publication. There are more books out there debunking his book than he has published himself. His only reference points tend to be decades out of date, selective, outright false, out of context, or deliberately ambiguous. Even if his fantasies were to have any credibility his whole approach puts it across in such a way that it could never be taken seriously.
If you had read my words (and there weren't many of them) I never said anything of the sort. I refered to YOU being far from trained, apart from BY Dolt Brown - much like a Chimpanzee training another Chimpanzee.
As for mutations, here are the facts [note, they are not from Brown]:
First of all, they are not facts. They are unfounded claims.
Secondly, part of what I said (if you had bothered to read it) was not that Brown made the quotes, but that he was the one that provided the links to them. Otherwise you wouldn't have been able to find them as (a) you seem to be incapable of being able to use Google & (b) you have a morbid dread of finding anything that disagrees with your Lord & Master, the Almighty Dolt Brown.
As for the ceolocanth. That is an excellent example, as it reinforces the concept of evolution. Creationists are always bringing up the pointless arguments of things like "why aren't these fossil creatures (eg trilobytes etc) still be found". The ceolocanth used to be included in this irrelevant argument - until one was found. Then, they had to immediately change their argument. This is typical of the Creationist thinking. They make the rules before they even start to play the game, then as soon as someone beats them, using their own rules, they decide to change the rules, as demonstrated by Wat Brown's own Wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Brow ... tionist%29
You will see that throughout the entry it is stating how he has no recognition among the scientific world, makes claims that no-one will debate him, but sets down rules to favour him, then chickens out. He has a single publication. There are more books out there debunking his book than he has published himself. His only reference points tend to be decades out of date, selective, outright false, out of context, or deliberately ambiguous. Even if his fantasies were to have any credibility his whole approach puts it across in such a way that it could never be taken seriously.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1491072 wrote: Do you doubt what they say is true?
What I doubt is true is your and Mr Brown's claim that what they say was said in support of his drivel.
What I doubt is true is your and Mr Brown's claim that what they say was said in support of his drivel.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1491074 wrote: Your powers of understanding are appalling. As bad as the so called science you follow.
You are hoping that I might get fed up and ignore the fact you are just fudging because you just cannot deliver what we ask.
Its embarrassing that you should do so but not unexpected. Its what you have done since you first posted.
I'll ask again. It's a simple request.
Provide the evidence for your creationist theories using conventional, peer reviewed journals, sites and publications. Out of context quotes from accepted scientists is not acceptable. Mass quoting from Creationists sites and Brown's book is also not acceptable. Please do employ a little joined up thinking and if the parameters of the challenge are difficult to grasp, please say so.
The challenge is very straightforward
You didn't answer my question: Do you doubt what the scientists say is true?
Also, you accuse me of using out of context quotes. I am guilty. But your accusation assumes, without evidence, that the quotes change the meaning of the contexts. Please show evidence how the quotes change the meaning of the contexts.
You are hoping that I might get fed up and ignore the fact you are just fudging because you just cannot deliver what we ask.
Its embarrassing that you should do so but not unexpected. Its what you have done since you first posted.
I'll ask again. It's a simple request.
Provide the evidence for your creationist theories using conventional, peer reviewed journals, sites and publications. Out of context quotes from accepted scientists is not acceptable. Mass quoting from Creationists sites and Brown's book is also not acceptable. Please do employ a little joined up thinking and if the parameters of the challenge are difficult to grasp, please say so.
The challenge is very straightforward
You didn't answer my question: Do you doubt what the scientists say is true?
Also, you accuse me of using out of context quotes. I am guilty. But your accusation assumes, without evidence, that the quotes change the meaning of the contexts. Please show evidence how the quotes change the meaning of the contexts.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
As for mutations, here are the facts [note, they are not from Brown]:
FourPart;1491075 wrote:
First of all, they are not facts. They are unfounded claims.
Made by scientists.
Secondly, part of what I said (if you had bothered to read it) was not that Brown made the quotes, but that he was the one that provided the links to them. Otherwise you wouldn't have been able to find them as (a) you seem to be incapable of being able to use Google & (b) you have a morbid dread of finding anything that disagrees with your Lord & Master, the Almighty Dolt Brown.
Evidence free assertion.
As for the ceolocanth. That is an excellent example, as it reinforces the concept of evolution. Creationists are always bringing up the pointless arguments of things like "why aren't these fossil creatures (eg trilobytes etc) still be found". The ceolocanth used to be included in this irrelevant argument - until one was found. Then, they had to immediately change their argument. This is typical of the Creationist thinking. They make the rules before they even start to play the game, then as soon as someone beats them, using their own rules, they decide to change the rules, as demonstrated by Wat Brown's own Wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Brow ... tionist%29
Wrong! The coelacanth used to be presented by the evolutionists as an index fossil that was a transformation from fish to land animals. Thought to have been extinct for 70,000,000 years, the coelacanth (SEE-la-kanth) was first caught in 1938, deep in the Indian Ocean, northwest of Madagascar. Rewards were then offered for coelacanths, so hundreds were caught and sold. In 1998, they were also found off the coast of Indonesia.c How could the ancestors of these coelacanths leave no fossils for 70,000,000 years?
Before coelacanths were caught, evolutionists incorrectly believed that the coelacanth had lungs, a large brain, and four bottom fins about to evolve into legs. Evolutionists reasoned that the coelacanth, or a similar fish, crawled out of a shallow sea and filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged land animal. Millions of students have been incorrectly taught that this fish was the ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals, including people. (Was your ancestor a fish?)
J. L. B. Smith, a well-known fish expert from South Africa, studied the first two captured coelacanths, nicknamed the coelacanth “Old Fourlegs and wrote a book by that title in 1956. When dissected, did they have lungs and a large brain? Not at all. Furthermore, in 1987, a German team filmed six coelacanths in their natural habitat. They were not crawling on all fours.
Before living coelacanths were found in 1938, evolutionists dated any rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least 70,000,000 years old. It was an index fossil. Today, evolutionists frequently express amazement that coelacanth fossils look so much like captured coelacanths—despite more than 70,000,000 years of evolution. If that age is correct, billions of coelacanths would have lived and died. Some should have been fossilized in younger rock and should be displayed in museums. Their absence implies that coelacanths have not lived for 70,000,000 years.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 65. Index Fossils
[continue]
FourPart;1491075 wrote:
First of all, they are not facts. They are unfounded claims.
Made by scientists.
Secondly, part of what I said (if you had bothered to read it) was not that Brown made the quotes, but that he was the one that provided the links to them. Otherwise you wouldn't have been able to find them as (a) you seem to be incapable of being able to use Google & (b) you have a morbid dread of finding anything that disagrees with your Lord & Master, the Almighty Dolt Brown.
Evidence free assertion.
As for the ceolocanth. That is an excellent example, as it reinforces the concept of evolution. Creationists are always bringing up the pointless arguments of things like "why aren't these fossil creatures (eg trilobytes etc) still be found". The ceolocanth used to be included in this irrelevant argument - until one was found. Then, they had to immediately change their argument. This is typical of the Creationist thinking. They make the rules before they even start to play the game, then as soon as someone beats them, using their own rules, they decide to change the rules, as demonstrated by Wat Brown's own Wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Brow ... tionist%29
Wrong! The coelacanth used to be presented by the evolutionists as an index fossil that was a transformation from fish to land animals. Thought to have been extinct for 70,000,000 years, the coelacanth (SEE-la-kanth) was first caught in 1938, deep in the Indian Ocean, northwest of Madagascar. Rewards were then offered for coelacanths, so hundreds were caught and sold. In 1998, they were also found off the coast of Indonesia.c How could the ancestors of these coelacanths leave no fossils for 70,000,000 years?
Before coelacanths were caught, evolutionists incorrectly believed that the coelacanth had lungs, a large brain, and four bottom fins about to evolve into legs. Evolutionists reasoned that the coelacanth, or a similar fish, crawled out of a shallow sea and filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged land animal. Millions of students have been incorrectly taught that this fish was the ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals, including people. (Was your ancestor a fish?)
J. L. B. Smith, a well-known fish expert from South Africa, studied the first two captured coelacanths, nicknamed the coelacanth “Old Fourlegs and wrote a book by that title in 1956. When dissected, did they have lungs and a large brain? Not at all. Furthermore, in 1987, a German team filmed six coelacanths in their natural habitat. They were not crawling on all fours.
Before living coelacanths were found in 1938, evolutionists dated any rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least 70,000,000 years old. It was an index fossil. Today, evolutionists frequently express amazement that coelacanth fossils look so much like captured coelacanths—despite more than 70,000,000 years of evolution. If that age is correct, billions of coelacanths would have lived and died. Some should have been fossilized in younger rock and should be displayed in museums. Their absence implies that coelacanths have not lived for 70,000,000 years.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 65. Index Fossils
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
[continued]
FourPart;1491075 wrote:
You will see that throughout the entry it is stating how he has no recognition among the scientific world, makes claims that no-one will debate him, but sets down rules to favour him, then chickens out. He has a single publication. There are more books out there debunking his book than he has published himself. His only reference points tend to be decades out of date, selective, outright false, out of context, or deliberately ambiguous. Even if his fantasies were to have any credibility his whole approach puts it across in such a way that it could never be taken seriously.
The authors of those books have an anti-Christian bias and have never been able to refute Brown. Also, here is a list of scientists who confirm his conclusions:
[continue]
FourPart;1491075 wrote:
You will see that throughout the entry it is stating how he has no recognition among the scientific world, makes claims that no-one will debate him, but sets down rules to favour him, then chickens out. He has a single publication. There are more books out there debunking his book than he has published himself. His only reference points tend to be decades out of date, selective, outright false, out of context, or deliberately ambiguous. Even if his fantasies were to have any credibility his whole approach puts it across in such a way that it could never be taken seriously.
The authors of those books have an anti-Christian bias and have never been able to refute Brown. Also, here is a list of scientists who confirm his conclusions:
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
[continued]
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1491098 wrote: You didn't answer my question: Do you doubt what the scientists say is true?
Also, you accuse me of using out of context quotes. I am guilty. But your accusation assumes, without evidence, that the quotes change the meaning of the contexts. Please show evidence how the quotes change the meaning of the contexts.
Did that with several of your examples, and you chose to simply ignore them.
Also, you accuse me of using out of context quotes. I am guilty. But your accusation assumes, without evidence, that the quotes change the meaning of the contexts. Please show evidence how the quotes change the meaning of the contexts.
Did that with several of your examples, and you chose to simply ignore them.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1491102 wrote: Did that with several of your examples, and you chose to simply ignore them.
False!
False!
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1491103 wrote: False!
You crack me up, dude. I could go back through the thread and dig some up, but I just don't see the point. You would, even then, deny.
I do have better things to do.
I hope you have a happy new year.
You crack me up, dude. I could go back through the thread and dig some up, but I just don't see the point. You would, even then, deny.
I do have better things to do.
I hope you have a happy new year.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1491100 wrote:
The authors of those books have an anti-Christian bias and have never been able to refute Brown. Also, here is a list of scientists who confirm his conclusions:
You may not have noticed, but I used those self same lists of yours as a list of scientists who have refuted Brown's claims. Now you show me otherwise. Do you question their refutations?
The authors of those books have an anti-Christian bias and have never been able to refute Brown. Also, here is a list of scientists who confirm his conclusions:
You may not have noticed, but I used those self same lists of yours as a list of scientists who have refuted Brown's claims. Now you show me otherwise. Do you question their refutations?
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1491099 wrote:
Made by scientists.
No - made by Creationists CALLING themselves Scientists.
Evidence free assertion.
No - you have provided all the evidence.
Not surprisingly the rest of your post has been more twaddle from another Creationist site.
The whole point of the Coelacanth discovery is that it is a transitional being between one form & another, regardless of at what stage it has reached. The environment in which it lives is what has kept it from human detection for so long. Fossils prove it was in existence that long ago, and catching one proves that it is still in existence, and that progressive transitions which have also been found confirm this.
If a Creationist were to be presented with the fossil of a tadpole & the fossil of a frog, if they weren't aware of the concept of amphibians they would swear blind that the two were totally different 'kinds'. The same can be said for the axolotyl & the salamander. Both are so closely related that it is often difficult to tell one from another. Both start life, just as with tadpoles, being gilled. The axolotyl remains so, but the mature salamander develops lungs & moves on to live a terrestrial, only returning to the water to breed. However, some salamanders, even those of the same species don't leave the water at all, even when they reach maturity. They remain gilled & go on to breed in the water. This is a demonstration of a transition between fish / amphibian / reptile. Just what do you define the differences between 'kinds' to be? If it has legs is it a land animal? If so, what about the axolotyl. It has legs - and it has gills, yet remains in the water. If it has lungs, and no legs, then what? A snake? I suppose a Creationist would define a whale, as it might in the Bible, as a "Great Fish". So where do you rate amphibians? They start with gills, but move on to have lungs. The variations of transitionals are endless. The traditional Creational get out for Creationists is to use the time honoured "kinds" term, but they are always loathe to actually define just what a "kind" is. Why? Because they know there will always be something that falls smack between two of those "kinds", thus blowing their claims out of the water, so by avoiding making definitions that they can be held to, they do their best to make it possible to change the rules as much as possible when the physical evidence is stacked against them when they have none of their own, other than the word of their own kind.
Made by scientists.
No - made by Creationists CALLING themselves Scientists.
Evidence free assertion.
No - you have provided all the evidence.
Not surprisingly the rest of your post has been more twaddle from another Creationist site.
The whole point of the Coelacanth discovery is that it is a transitional being between one form & another, regardless of at what stage it has reached. The environment in which it lives is what has kept it from human detection for so long. Fossils prove it was in existence that long ago, and catching one proves that it is still in existence, and that progressive transitions which have also been found confirm this.
If a Creationist were to be presented with the fossil of a tadpole & the fossil of a frog, if they weren't aware of the concept of amphibians they would swear blind that the two were totally different 'kinds'. The same can be said for the axolotyl & the salamander. Both are so closely related that it is often difficult to tell one from another. Both start life, just as with tadpoles, being gilled. The axolotyl remains so, but the mature salamander develops lungs & moves on to live a terrestrial, only returning to the water to breed. However, some salamanders, even those of the same species don't leave the water at all, even when they reach maturity. They remain gilled & go on to breed in the water. This is a demonstration of a transition between fish / amphibian / reptile. Just what do you define the differences between 'kinds' to be? If it has legs is it a land animal? If so, what about the axolotyl. It has legs - and it has gills, yet remains in the water. If it has lungs, and no legs, then what? A snake? I suppose a Creationist would define a whale, as it might in the Bible, as a "Great Fish". So where do you rate amphibians? They start with gills, but move on to have lungs. The variations of transitionals are endless. The traditional Creational get out for Creationists is to use the time honoured "kinds" term, but they are always loathe to actually define just what a "kind" is. Why? Because they know there will always be something that falls smack between two of those "kinds", thus blowing their claims out of the water, so by avoiding making definitions that they can be held to, they do their best to make it possible to change the rules as much as possible when the physical evidence is stacked against them when they have none of their own, other than the word of their own kind.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1491111 wrote: You may not have noticed, but I used those self same lists of yours as a list of scientists who have refuted Brown's claims. Now you show me otherwise. Do you question their refutations?
You have made a false statement. You are unable to show they refuted Brown's conclusions. I have shown they confirm his conclusions.
You have made a false statement. You are unable to show they refuted Brown's conclusions. I have shown they confirm his conclusions.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1491112 wrote: No - made by Creationists CALLING themselves Scientists.
Not one of them is a creationist.
No - you have provided all the evidence.
Thank you for admitting that.
The whole point of the Coelacanth discovery is that it is a transitional being between one form & another, regardless of at what stage it has reached. The environment in which it lives is what has kept it from human detection for so long. Fossils prove it was in existence that long ago, and catching one proves that it is still in existence, and that progressive transitions which have also been found confirm this.
Your denial of the facts is breathtaking, but not surprising given your erroneous worldview. The fact is before coelacanths were caught, evolutionists incorrectly believed that the coelacanth had lungs, a large brain, and four bottom fins about to evolve into legs. Evolutionists reasoned that the coelacanth, or a similar fish, crawled out of a shallow sea and filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged land animal. Millions of students have been incorrectly taught that this fish was the ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals, including people.
J. L. B. Smith, a well-known fish expert from South Africa, studied the first two captured coelacanths, nicknamed the coelacanth “Old Fourlegs and wrote a book by that title in 1956. When dissected, did they have lungs and a large brain? Not at all. Furthermore, in 1987, a German team filmed six coelacanths in their natural habitat. They were not crawling on all fours.
Before living coelacanths were found in 1938, evolutionists dated any rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least 70,000,000 years old. It was an index fossil. Today, evolutionists frequently express amazement that coelacanth fossils look so much like captured coelacanths—despite more than 70,000,000 years of evolution.g If that age is correct, billions of coelacanths would have lived and died. Some should have been fossilized in younger rock and should be displayed in museums. Their absence implies that coelacanths have not lived for 70,000,000 years.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 65.** Index Fossils
Not one of them is a creationist.
No - you have provided all the evidence.
Thank you for admitting that.
The whole point of the Coelacanth discovery is that it is a transitional being between one form & another, regardless of at what stage it has reached. The environment in which it lives is what has kept it from human detection for so long. Fossils prove it was in existence that long ago, and catching one proves that it is still in existence, and that progressive transitions which have also been found confirm this.
Your denial of the facts is breathtaking, but not surprising given your erroneous worldview. The fact is before coelacanths were caught, evolutionists incorrectly believed that the coelacanth had lungs, a large brain, and four bottom fins about to evolve into legs. Evolutionists reasoned that the coelacanth, or a similar fish, crawled out of a shallow sea and filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged land animal. Millions of students have been incorrectly taught that this fish was the ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals, including people.
J. L. B. Smith, a well-known fish expert from South Africa, studied the first two captured coelacanths, nicknamed the coelacanth “Old Fourlegs and wrote a book by that title in 1956. When dissected, did they have lungs and a large brain? Not at all. Furthermore, in 1987, a German team filmed six coelacanths in their natural habitat. They were not crawling on all fours.
Before living coelacanths were found in 1938, evolutionists dated any rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least 70,000,000 years old. It was an index fossil. Today, evolutionists frequently express amazement that coelacanth fossils look so much like captured coelacanths—despite more than 70,000,000 years of evolution.g If that age is correct, billions of coelacanths would have lived and died. Some should have been fossilized in younger rock and should be displayed in museums. Their absence implies that coelacanths have not lived for 70,000,000 years.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 65.** Index Fossils
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1491123 wrote: You have made a false statement. You are unable to show they refuted Brown's conclusions. I have shown they confirm his conclusions.
Where? You have done nothing but provide exactly the same lists, with essentially the same claims. You have not shown who said what or where. You keep saying that you have, but when challenged to say where the best you can do is to come up with the same lists making the same claim. Time & time again I have asked for the post number where you have provided this information. Time & time again you have hedge the issue & tried to change the subject in the vain hope I will forget. I have not forgotten - not will I. Not until you provide evidence of your having provided the information that you claim you have provided (regarding some degree of cross referencing between the 2 lists). Put quite simply - you are unable to provide such information because it doesn't exist.
Now, I say that these scientists refute Brown's claims in those publications. You show me where those scientists say otherwise in those publications - and that doesn't mean pasting the same lists again. Without doing so you are admitting that my evidence is just as good as yours.
Where? You have done nothing but provide exactly the same lists, with essentially the same claims. You have not shown who said what or where. You keep saying that you have, but when challenged to say where the best you can do is to come up with the same lists making the same claim. Time & time again I have asked for the post number where you have provided this information. Time & time again you have hedge the issue & tried to change the subject in the vain hope I will forget. I have not forgotten - not will I. Not until you provide evidence of your having provided the information that you claim you have provided (regarding some degree of cross referencing between the 2 lists). Put quite simply - you are unable to provide such information because it doesn't exist.
Now, I say that these scientists refute Brown's claims in those publications. You show me where those scientists say otherwise in those publications - and that doesn't mean pasting the same lists again. Without doing so you are admitting that my evidence is just as good as yours.
Science Disproves Evolution
Quote Originally Posted by Pahu
You have made a false statement. You are unable to show they refuted Brown's conclusions. I have shown they confirm his conclusions.
FourPart;1491125 wrote: Where? You have done nothing but provide exactly the same lists, with essentially the same claims. You have not shown who said what or where. You keep saying that you have, but when challenged to say where the best you can do is to come up with the same lists making the same claim. Time & time again I have asked for the post number where you have provided this information. Time & time again you have hedge the issue & tried to change the subject in the vain hope I will forget. I have not forgotten - not will I. Not until you provide evidence of your having provided the information that you claim you have provided (regarding some degree of cross referencing between the 2 lists). Put quite simply - you are unable to provide such information because it doesn't exist.
Now, I say that these scientists refute Brown's claims in those publications. You show me where those scientists say otherwise in those publications - and that doesn't mean pasting the same lists again. Without doing so you are admitting that my evidence is just as good as yours.
Nonsense! I have provided the information you requested and you have ignored it and continued to claim otherwise. Again, if you want confirmation the scientists I have named confirm Brown's conclusions, go here and look up the names: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Index Letter A
You have made a false statement. You are unable to show they refuted Brown's conclusions. I have shown they confirm his conclusions.
FourPart;1491125 wrote: Where? You have done nothing but provide exactly the same lists, with essentially the same claims. You have not shown who said what or where. You keep saying that you have, but when challenged to say where the best you can do is to come up with the same lists making the same claim. Time & time again I have asked for the post number where you have provided this information. Time & time again you have hedge the issue & tried to change the subject in the vain hope I will forget. I have not forgotten - not will I. Not until you provide evidence of your having provided the information that you claim you have provided (regarding some degree of cross referencing between the 2 lists). Put quite simply - you are unable to provide such information because it doesn't exist.
Now, I say that these scientists refute Brown's claims in those publications. You show me where those scientists say otherwise in those publications - and that doesn't mean pasting the same lists again. Without doing so you are admitting that my evidence is just as good as yours.
Nonsense! I have provided the information you requested and you have ignored it and continued to claim otherwise. Again, if you want confirmation the scientists I have named confirm Brown's conclusions, go here and look up the names: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Index Letter A
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Let us start with the first one shall we? Scott Tremaine
"most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong"
As quoted by Richard Kerr
(Just where is the original quote that it was taken from - most probably out of context)? If the quote is Googled the ONLY reference to it sources back to Richard Kerr, whereas if it were a genuine quote it should source back to Scott Tremaine, as opposed to what looks like a misquote. That, therefore is nullified from the list as it is not an original quote & cannot be verified.
Next on the list - David Stevenson
“Stevenson and others are puzzling out how subtle differences in starting conditions such as distance from the sun, along with chance events like giant impacts early in the solar system history, can send planets down vastly different evolutionary paths. Kerr, Ibid.
Once again, not an original reference to Stevenson, but a claim by Kerr (which I might add not only does not speak against evolution, but in support of it - Sends planets down vastly different evolutionary paths - therefore accepting the existence of evolution.
Next - William R Ward.
"Recent models of this process predict that the orbit of the newly formed Moon should be in, or very near, the Earth's equatorial plane."
This time a genuine quote - but in the typical style of the Creationist, only a PARTIAL quote in order to take the meaning out of context. This is the FULL quote (with the only cited piece highlighted in italics so as to demonstrate the degree of cherry picking):
"The Moon is generally believed to have formed from the debris disk created by a large body colliding with the early Earth1, 2. Recent models of this process predict that the orbit of the newly formed Moon should be in, or very near, the Earth's equatorial plane3, 4. This prediction, however, is at odds with the known history of the lunar orbit: the orbit is currently expanding, but can be traced back in time to reveal that, when the Moon formed, its orbital inclination relative to the Earth's equator was I approximately 10° (refs 5, 6). The cause of this initial inclination has been a mystery for over 30 years, as most dynamical processes (such as those that act to flatten Saturn's rings) will tend to decrease orbital inclinations. Here we show that the Moon's substantial orbital inclination is probably a natural result of its formation from an impact-generated disk. The mechanism involves a gravitational resonance between the Moon and accretion-disk material, which can increase orbital inclinations up to approx15°."
(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 741a0.html)
This shows the context to be totally different to that intended by Brown, as it provides an explanation to justify the difference. It also remarks on it being a natural result of impact, which is totally in conflict with the intent that Brown is trying to put across.
Three for three so far. Two unverifiable paraquotes, by someone claiming to be quoting someone else, without reference to where from, and another in true Brownian style, taken totally out of context. I doubt there is any need to continue, as these are taken in order - not picking & choosing. Furthermore it demonstrates that I also follow links & do additional research - something I have yet to see you even attempt.
"most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong"
As quoted by Richard Kerr
(Just where is the original quote that it was taken from - most probably out of context)? If the quote is Googled the ONLY reference to it sources back to Richard Kerr, whereas if it were a genuine quote it should source back to Scott Tremaine, as opposed to what looks like a misquote. That, therefore is nullified from the list as it is not an original quote & cannot be verified.
Next on the list - David Stevenson
“Stevenson and others are puzzling out how subtle differences in starting conditions such as distance from the sun, along with chance events like giant impacts early in the solar system history, can send planets down vastly different evolutionary paths. Kerr, Ibid.
Once again, not an original reference to Stevenson, but a claim by Kerr (which I might add not only does not speak against evolution, but in support of it - Sends planets down vastly different evolutionary paths - therefore accepting the existence of evolution.
Next - William R Ward.
"Recent models of this process predict that the orbit of the newly formed Moon should be in, or very near, the Earth's equatorial plane."
This time a genuine quote - but in the typical style of the Creationist, only a PARTIAL quote in order to take the meaning out of context. This is the FULL quote (with the only cited piece highlighted in italics so as to demonstrate the degree of cherry picking):
"The Moon is generally believed to have formed from the debris disk created by a large body colliding with the early Earth1, 2. Recent models of this process predict that the orbit of the newly formed Moon should be in, or very near, the Earth's equatorial plane3, 4. This prediction, however, is at odds with the known history of the lunar orbit: the orbit is currently expanding, but can be traced back in time to reveal that, when the Moon formed, its orbital inclination relative to the Earth's equator was I approximately 10° (refs 5, 6). The cause of this initial inclination has been a mystery for over 30 years, as most dynamical processes (such as those that act to flatten Saturn's rings) will tend to decrease orbital inclinations. Here we show that the Moon's substantial orbital inclination is probably a natural result of its formation from an impact-generated disk. The mechanism involves a gravitational resonance between the Moon and accretion-disk material, which can increase orbital inclinations up to approx15°."
(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 741a0.html)
This shows the context to be totally different to that intended by Brown, as it provides an explanation to justify the difference. It also remarks on it being a natural result of impact, which is totally in conflict with the intent that Brown is trying to put across.
Three for three so far. Two unverifiable paraquotes, by someone claiming to be quoting someone else, without reference to where from, and another in true Brownian style, taken totally out of context. I doubt there is any need to continue, as these are taken in order - not picking & choosing. Furthermore it demonstrates that I also follow links & do additional research - something I have yet to see you even attempt.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1491125 wrote: Where? You have done nothing but provide exactly the same lists, with essentially the same claims. You have not shown who said what or where. You keep saying that you have, but when challenged to say where the best you can do is to come up with the same lists making the same claim. Time & time again I have asked for the post number where you have provided this information. Time & time again you have hedge the issue & tried to change the subject in the vain hope I will forget. I have not forgotten - not will I. Not until you provide evidence of your having provided the information that you claim you have provided (regarding some degree of cross referencing between the 2 lists). Put quite simply - you are unable to provide such information because it doesn't exist.
Now, I say that these scientists refute Brown's claims in those publications. You show me where those scientists say otherwise in those publications - and that doesn't mean pasting the same lists again. Without doing so you are admitting that my evidence is just as good as yours.
He has consistently refused to.
He will not take up the challenge because he knows the quotes will not confirm anything that Brown or Creationists contend, unless cut from the full passage.
He has admitted his guilt at context free quoting but denies that doing so changes it's meaning.
It speaks volumes about the whole pseudo-scientific creationism circus
Now, I say that these scientists refute Brown's claims in those publications. You show me where those scientists say otherwise in those publications - and that doesn't mean pasting the same lists again. Without doing so you are admitting that my evidence is just as good as yours.
He has consistently refused to.
He will not take up the challenge because he knows the quotes will not confirm anything that Brown or Creationists contend, unless cut from the full passage.
He has admitted his guilt at context free quoting but denies that doing so changes it's meaning.
It speaks volumes about the whole pseudo-scientific creationism circus
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1491129 wrote: Let us start with the first one shall we? Scott Tremaine
"most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong"
As quoted by Richard Kerr
(Just where is the original quote that it was taken from - most probably out of context)? If the quote is Googled the ONLY reference to it sources back to Richard Kerr, whereas if it were a genuine quote it should source back to Scott Tremaine, as opposed to what looks like a misquote. That, therefore is nullified from the list as it is not an original quote & cannot be verified.
Next on the list - David Stevenson
“Stevenson and others are puzzling out how subtle differences in starting conditions such as distance from the sun, along with chance events like giant impacts early in the solar system history, can send planets down vastly different evolutionary paths. Kerr, Ibid.
Once again, not an original reference to Stevenson, but a claim by Kerr (which I might add not only does not speak against evolution, but in support of it - Sends planets down vastly different evolutionary paths - therefore accepting the existence of evolution.
Next - William R Ward.
"Recent models of this process predict that the orbit of the newly formed Moon should be in, or very near, the Earth's equatorial plane."
This time a genuine quote - but in the typical style of the Creationist, only a PARTIAL quote in order to take the meaning out of context. This is the FULL quote (with the only cited piece highlighted in italics so as to demonstrate the degree of cherry picking):
"The Moon is generally believed to have formed from the debris disk created by a large body colliding with the early Earth1, 2. Recent models of this process predict that the orbit of the newly formed Moon should be in, or very near, the Earth's equatorial plane3, 4. This prediction, however, is at odds with the known history of the lunar orbit: the orbit is currently expanding, but can be traced back in time to reveal that, when the Moon formed, its orbital inclination relative to the Earth's equator was I approximately 10° (refs 5, 6). The cause of this initial inclination has been a mystery for over 30 years, as most dynamical processes (such as those that act to flatten Saturn's rings) will tend to decrease orbital inclinations. Here we show that the Moon's substantial orbital inclination is probably a natural result of its formation from an impact-generated disk. The mechanism involves a gravitational resonance between the Moon and accretion-disk material, which can increase orbital inclinations up to approx15°."
(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 741a0.html)
This shows the context to be totally different to that intended by Brown, as it provides an explanation to justify the difference. It also remarks on it being a natural result of impact, which is totally in conflict with the intent that Brown is trying to put across.
Three for three so far. Two unverifiable paraquotes, by someone claiming to be quoting someone else, without reference to where from, and another in true Brownian style, taken totally out of context. I doubt there is any need to continue, as these are taken in order - not picking & choosing. Furthermore it demonstrates that I also follow links & do additional research - something I have yet to see you even attempt.
Let us take a closer look at the last quote. That was from an article by Brown titled, Strange Planets, where he concludes that: "Moons. The orbit of each of these moons should lie very near the equatorial plane of the planet it orbits, but many, including Earth’s moon, are in highly inclined orbits."f The end note f goes to the statement, Recent models of this process predict that the orbit of the newly formed Moon should be in, or very near [less than 1°], the Earth’s equatorial plane. William R. Ward and Robin M. Canup, “Origin of the Moon’s Orbital Inclination from Resonant Disk Interactions, Nature, Vol. 403, 17 February 2000, p. 741. That statement confirms Brown's conclusion, which is what I claim.
That statement does not change the meaning of the context. The part of the context you put in bold is his speculation. Notice the word "probably." Ward is saying the recent models predicting that the orbit of the newly formed Moon should be in, or very near, the Earth's equatorial plane are at odds with the known history of the lunar orbit. Assuming he is right, that still does not mean his quote changed the meaning of the context.
"most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong"
As quoted by Richard Kerr
(Just where is the original quote that it was taken from - most probably out of context)? If the quote is Googled the ONLY reference to it sources back to Richard Kerr, whereas if it were a genuine quote it should source back to Scott Tremaine, as opposed to what looks like a misquote. That, therefore is nullified from the list as it is not an original quote & cannot be verified.
Next on the list - David Stevenson
“Stevenson and others are puzzling out how subtle differences in starting conditions such as distance from the sun, along with chance events like giant impacts early in the solar system history, can send planets down vastly different evolutionary paths. Kerr, Ibid.
Once again, not an original reference to Stevenson, but a claim by Kerr (which I might add not only does not speak against evolution, but in support of it - Sends planets down vastly different evolutionary paths - therefore accepting the existence of evolution.
Next - William R Ward.
"Recent models of this process predict that the orbit of the newly formed Moon should be in, or very near, the Earth's equatorial plane."
This time a genuine quote - but in the typical style of the Creationist, only a PARTIAL quote in order to take the meaning out of context. This is the FULL quote (with the only cited piece highlighted in italics so as to demonstrate the degree of cherry picking):
"The Moon is generally believed to have formed from the debris disk created by a large body colliding with the early Earth1, 2. Recent models of this process predict that the orbit of the newly formed Moon should be in, or very near, the Earth's equatorial plane3, 4. This prediction, however, is at odds with the known history of the lunar orbit: the orbit is currently expanding, but can be traced back in time to reveal that, when the Moon formed, its orbital inclination relative to the Earth's equator was I approximately 10° (refs 5, 6). The cause of this initial inclination has been a mystery for over 30 years, as most dynamical processes (such as those that act to flatten Saturn's rings) will tend to decrease orbital inclinations. Here we show that the Moon's substantial orbital inclination is probably a natural result of its formation from an impact-generated disk. The mechanism involves a gravitational resonance between the Moon and accretion-disk material, which can increase orbital inclinations up to approx15°."
(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 741a0.html)
This shows the context to be totally different to that intended by Brown, as it provides an explanation to justify the difference. It also remarks on it being a natural result of impact, which is totally in conflict with the intent that Brown is trying to put across.
Three for three so far. Two unverifiable paraquotes, by someone claiming to be quoting someone else, without reference to where from, and another in true Brownian style, taken totally out of context. I doubt there is any need to continue, as these are taken in order - not picking & choosing. Furthermore it demonstrates that I also follow links & do additional research - something I have yet to see you even attempt.
Let us take a closer look at the last quote. That was from an article by Brown titled, Strange Planets, where he concludes that: "Moons. The orbit of each of these moons should lie very near the equatorial plane of the planet it orbits, but many, including Earth’s moon, are in highly inclined orbits."f The end note f goes to the statement, Recent models of this process predict that the orbit of the newly formed Moon should be in, or very near [less than 1°], the Earth’s equatorial plane. William R. Ward and Robin M. Canup, “Origin of the Moon’s Orbital Inclination from Resonant Disk Interactions, Nature, Vol. 403, 17 February 2000, p. 741. That statement confirms Brown's conclusion, which is what I claim.
That statement does not change the meaning of the context. The part of the context you put in bold is his speculation. Notice the word "probably." Ward is saying the recent models predicting that the orbit of the newly formed Moon should be in, or very near, the Earth's equatorial plane are at odds with the known history of the lunar orbit. Assuming he is right, that still does not mean his quote changed the meaning of the context.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
I know who[mis]USED the quote - only using the snippet that he thought might support his case - as well it might to those who blindly accept his word & look no further.
As far as "probably" is concerned (you really should learn your mathematical & scientific terminology), that is the nature of true science. Because no-one was there at the time to provide an eye witness account everything has to be extrapolated from mathematical probabilities. If something has a probability of 1 that means that it is a certainty, but there are no certainties in Science. The is always the Chance element, and no Scientist worth his salt will try to claim otherwise. If a scientist sees the numbers 1, 3, 5, then h might extrapolate that the next number in the series might be 7 (increments of 2). Then the next number comes up as 7, which supports the theory. Then he might theorise on the next number be 9, but it isn't - it's 11. Not a major problem. Perhaps the 9 has yet to be found? Then the next number comes up - 13. Perhaps another number missing? Then the next a 17. The Scientist then reexamines the situation & comes to the conclusion that the initial theory of sequential odd numbers was probably not true, and that there were no missing numbers at all, but a sequence of Prime Numbers. However - the possibility still exists that they really ARE sequential odd numbers, only some are still to be found. One doesn't necessarily discount the other, but goes towards supporting another. The more supporting information that is found simply serve to increase the probability - but it can never be a probability of 1 because there is still that minute possibility of an alternative pattern.
The Creationist point of view, however had no account of probability, despite no-one being there at the beginning to witness things. They see it as a probability factor of 1 because some old book compiled from eons of superstition says so. Creationists use reformatted / edited quotes in an attempt to fool the gullible. Anyone with a mind of their own with research the claims to see if they are true or not. I did just that & found them to be false. I have even demonstrated this time & time again with Brown constantly misrepresenting reputable scientists. He is a cheat, a charlatan & a coward. By misusing quotes & placing things out of context he is clearly a liar (is that not forbidden in the Bible? Thou shalt not bear false witness). He makes claims of challenges to debates being turned down, then chickens out when anyone accepts, even when on his own terms. A genuine Scientist WELCOMES the challenge of a genuine debate. They WANT to be proven wrong as that is all part of the path to the ultimate truth. As Sherlock Holmes once stated (yes, a fictional character, I know, but the logic is still true), "When you remove all the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true". Scientists want to remove all the impossible options. If they are challenged on a point they stop to discuss it & provide evidence to substantiate their claims. They answer questions. You, on the other hand, simply respond to every challenge by interminally pasting the same old rubbish. You just don't seem to understand that because something is wrong, repeating it over & over again doesn't make it true. You don't even think for yourself.
As far as "probably" is concerned (you really should learn your mathematical & scientific terminology), that is the nature of true science. Because no-one was there at the time to provide an eye witness account everything has to be extrapolated from mathematical probabilities. If something has a probability of 1 that means that it is a certainty, but there are no certainties in Science. The is always the Chance element, and no Scientist worth his salt will try to claim otherwise. If a scientist sees the numbers 1, 3, 5, then h might extrapolate that the next number in the series might be 7 (increments of 2). Then the next number comes up as 7, which supports the theory. Then he might theorise on the next number be 9, but it isn't - it's 11. Not a major problem. Perhaps the 9 has yet to be found? Then the next number comes up - 13. Perhaps another number missing? Then the next a 17. The Scientist then reexamines the situation & comes to the conclusion that the initial theory of sequential odd numbers was probably not true, and that there were no missing numbers at all, but a sequence of Prime Numbers. However - the possibility still exists that they really ARE sequential odd numbers, only some are still to be found. One doesn't necessarily discount the other, but goes towards supporting another. The more supporting information that is found simply serve to increase the probability - but it can never be a probability of 1 because there is still that minute possibility of an alternative pattern.
The Creationist point of view, however had no account of probability, despite no-one being there at the beginning to witness things. They see it as a probability factor of 1 because some old book compiled from eons of superstition says so. Creationists use reformatted / edited quotes in an attempt to fool the gullible. Anyone with a mind of their own with research the claims to see if they are true or not. I did just that & found them to be false. I have even demonstrated this time & time again with Brown constantly misrepresenting reputable scientists. He is a cheat, a charlatan & a coward. By misusing quotes & placing things out of context he is clearly a liar (is that not forbidden in the Bible? Thou shalt not bear false witness). He makes claims of challenges to debates being turned down, then chickens out when anyone accepts, even when on his own terms. A genuine Scientist WELCOMES the challenge of a genuine debate. They WANT to be proven wrong as that is all part of the path to the ultimate truth. As Sherlock Holmes once stated (yes, a fictional character, I know, but the logic is still true), "When you remove all the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true". Scientists want to remove all the impossible options. If they are challenged on a point they stop to discuss it & provide evidence to substantiate their claims. They answer questions. You, on the other hand, simply respond to every challenge by interminally pasting the same old rubbish. You just don't seem to understand that because something is wrong, repeating it over & over again doesn't make it true. You don't even think for yourself.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1491132 wrote:
The Creationist point of view, however had no account of probability, despite no-one being there at the beginning to witness things. They see it as a probability factor of 1 because some old book compiled from eons of superstition says so.
That old book, the Bible, says there was someone there as a witness, God. The Bible is not a book of superstitions. Here are the facts:
Bible Accuracy
1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:
The Rocks Cry Out
In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net
The Bible and Archaeology: How Archaeology Confirms the Biblical Record | United Church of God
http://www.biblestudysite.com/arch.htm
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki
King James Bible
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
101 End Times Bible Prophecy
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
Creationists use reformatted / edited quotes in an attempt to fool the gullible.
Wrong! Creationists are dedicated to finding and sharing truth.
A genuine Scientist WELCOMES the challenge of a genuine debate. They WANT to be proven wrong as that is all part of the path to the ultimate truth. As Sherlock Holmes once stated (yes, a fictional character, I know, but the logic is still true), "When you remove all the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true". Scientists want to remove all the impossible options. If they are challenged on a point they stop to discuss it & provide evidence to substantiate their claims. They answer questions.
True. But evolutionists ignore the scientific method when it disproves evolution.
Anyone with a mind of their own with research the claims to see if they are true or not. I did just that & found them to be false. I have even demonstrated this time & time again with Brown constantly misrepresenting reputable scientists. He is a cheat, a charlatan & a coward. By misusing quotes & placing things out of context he is clearly a liar (is that not forbidden in the Bible? Thou shalt not bear false witness). He makes claims of challenges to debates being turned down, then chickens out when anyone accepts, even when on his own terms. You, on the other hand, simply respond to every challenge by interminally pasting the same old rubbish. You just don't seem to understand that because something is wrong, repeating it over & over again doesn't make it true. You don't even think for yourself.
Your claims are without evidence or merit and simply reflect your close minded acceptance of your mythology.
The Creationist point of view, however had no account of probability, despite no-one being there at the beginning to witness things. They see it as a probability factor of 1 because some old book compiled from eons of superstition says so.
That old book, the Bible, says there was someone there as a witness, God. The Bible is not a book of superstitions. Here are the facts:
Bible Accuracy
1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:
The Rocks Cry Out
In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net
The Bible and Archaeology: How Archaeology Confirms the Biblical Record | United Church of God
http://www.biblestudysite.com/arch.htm
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki
King James Bible
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
101 End Times Bible Prophecy
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
Creationists use reformatted / edited quotes in an attempt to fool the gullible.
Wrong! Creationists are dedicated to finding and sharing truth.
A genuine Scientist WELCOMES the challenge of a genuine debate. They WANT to be proven wrong as that is all part of the path to the ultimate truth. As Sherlock Holmes once stated (yes, a fictional character, I know, but the logic is still true), "When you remove all the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true". Scientists want to remove all the impossible options. If they are challenged on a point they stop to discuss it & provide evidence to substantiate their claims. They answer questions.
True. But evolutionists ignore the scientific method when it disproves evolution.
Anyone with a mind of their own with research the claims to see if they are true or not. I did just that & found them to be false. I have even demonstrated this time & time again with Brown constantly misrepresenting reputable scientists. He is a cheat, a charlatan & a coward. By misusing quotes & placing things out of context he is clearly a liar (is that not forbidden in the Bible? Thou shalt not bear false witness). He makes claims of challenges to debates being turned down, then chickens out when anyone accepts, even when on his own terms. You, on the other hand, simply respond to every challenge by interminally pasting the same old rubbish. You just don't seem to understand that because something is wrong, repeating it over & over again doesn't make it true. You don't even think for yourself.
Your claims are without evidence or merit and simply reflect your close minded acceptance of your mythology.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.