Book: The Hoax Called Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Touchstone said:
You can slander the integrity of scientists all you want, but if you ask them, they will affirm that such a find would be fatal to Darwin’s idea.
Click to expand...
I note the reaction to the discovery of a Jurassic era beaver – a fully-formed mammal, and draw the appropriate conclusion.

I note the reaction to the discovery of lignin, claimed to have evolved only as an adaptation by land plants, found in sea algae (resulting in a billion-year revision of plant evolution timeline) and conclude that there is nothing that could possibly be fatal to Darwinian belief. In the above-linked story, we see a classic, superb, crystal-clear explanation from an evolutionist:

Responding to the only conclusion that an evolutionist can arrivate at – namely, this substance evolved twice, independently, biologist, Professor Denny states:

“The pathways, enzymes and genes that go into making this stuff are pretty complicated, so to come up with all those separately would be really, really amazing,” says Denny. "Anything is possible, but that would be one hell of a coincidence."

They will say exactly the same thing whenever a contradiction comes along.
 
reggieM said:
I note the reaction to the discovery of a Jurassic era beaver – a fully-formed mammal, and draw the appropriate conclusion.

I note the reaction to the discovery of lignin, claimed to have evolved only as an adaptation by land plants, found in sea algae (resulting in a billion-year revision of plant evolution timeline) and conclude that there is nothing that could possibly be fatal to Darwinian belief. In the above-linked story, we see a classic, superb, crystal-clear explanation from an evolutionist:

Responding to the only conclusion that an evolutionist can arrivate at – namely, this substance evolved twice, independently, biologist, Professor Denny states:
“The pathways, enzymes and genes that go into making this stuff are pretty complicated, so to come up with all those separately would be really, really amazing,” says Denny. **“Anything is possible, but that would be one hell of a coincidence.”**They will say exactly the same thing whenever a contradiction comes along.
Click to expand...
Ahhh - the ol’ evolution of the gaps argument.😉
 
reggieM said:
I note the reaction to the discovery of a Jurassic era beaver – a fully-formed mammal, and draw the appropriate conclusion.

I note the reaction to the discovery of lignin, claimed to have evolved only as an adaptation by land plants, found in sea algae (resulting in a billion-year revision of plant evolution timeline) and conclude that there is nothing that could possibly be fatal to Darwinian belief. In the above-linked story, we see a classic, superb, crystal-clear explanation from an evolutionist:

Responding to the only conclusion that an evolutionist can arrivate at – namely, this substance evolved twice, independently, biologist, Professor Denny states:

“The pathways, enzymes and genes that go into making this stuff are pretty complicated, so to come up with all those separately would be really, really amazing,” says Denny. "Anything is possible, but that would be one hell of a coincidence."

They will say exactly the same thing whenever a contradiction comes along.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the effort reggieM. I encourage you to continue since such knowledge and information is rarely seen here.

Peace,
Ed
 
reggieM said:
Actually, a very simple explanation can be given, just as it was given for many other contradictory elements. In this case, a single rabbit fossil. The explanation?

– “This finding shows that mamallian evolution occurred more rapidly than previously thought.”
Click to expand...
It would need negative time, since the earliest mammals came millions of years after the Cambrian. It would not be an adjustment to the theory, but a complete rewrite.
I should have mentioned earlier that by shifting the topic to an attack on creationism, the main argument (that evolution explains everything) was abandoned.
Click to expand...
Evolution cannot explain everything. Have you read Darwin:If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.
  • both from Chapter Six of Origins.
    There are two things that evolution could not explain that were stated right at the beginning. So far none of the opponents of evolution have been able to meet those criteria. Haldane added the early rabbit fossil disproof later.
Evolution does not explain everything; Darwin explicitly said so and gave two examples. It does explain everything that we have found so far because that is what scientific theories do. Yet there are things that we could potentially find that evolution could not explain.

The reason the argument has moved on is that the anti-evolutionists had already lost this one as soon as Darwin published.

rossum
 
edwest2 said:
I think your comments support reggieM’s position. There have been statements made by scientists that the materialist worldview must be supported at all costs. It should be obvious to anyone reading this that science is the ally of atheist-materialism. As I wrote elsewhere, even scientists like the late Isaac Asimov support the nonsensical notion that creationism will put an end to scientific discovery. The Ideology of Evolution is far more important here and elsewhere than the Science of Evolution, but that has been buried under many layers of materialism.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I am not aware of any scientists stating that metaphysical materialism must be supported at all costs. Scientists are people, with their own philosophy’s and views outside of science (Francis Collins, for example, is a scientist who is also a theist), but science insists on methodological naturalism as necessary for its epistemology. What a scientist says as a matter of extra-scientific beliefs, whether it is Collins proclaiming theism (see his propounding of “BioLogos”, for example), or Richard Dawkins speaking about the “God Delusion”. Neither of those are scientific proclamations, and cannot be.

If you have examples of scientists speaking as science, on the practice of science of the necessity of metaphysical naturalism vs. the practical necessity of methodological materialism, I stand to be corrected. That would be very, very hard to get past the reviewers in a refereed journal.

My comments, then were responsive to the practice of science, not religious or anti-religious views that lie outside its domain.

-TS
 
liquidpele said:
Apparently you didn’t read my links. As I said, they found what amounts to fossilized cells and some proteins. Both of which are not all that miraculous. Had it not been for the media frenzy over a possible Jurassic Park scenario, this likely wouldn’t have even been that big of a deal for the scientists involved.
Click to expand...
I read the links several years ago.

From the second link April 30, 2009:

…
Initial observation suggested that the fossil was even better preserved than the* T. r*ex fossil, though it was 12 million years older. After demineralization, bone fragments showed** “marked preservation of original tissues and molecules, with microstructures resembling soft, transparent vessels, cells, and fibrous matrix,” the researchers said in a statement. **
**Subsequent immunoblotting and immunochemistry confirmed the presence of collagen, laminin and elastin proteins from the bone. Bone cells and blood vessels were also extracted from the bone. **
“Our findings demonstrated that it did contain basement membrane matrix,” said Raghu Kalluri, chief of the Division of Matrix Biology at Beth Israel Deaconess and a co-author on the Science study. Basement membranes, which degrade and regenerate during development and wound repair, comprise a continuous extracellular matrix that links endothelial, epithelial, muscle, or neuronal cells and their adjacent stroma.
*In situ *mass spectrometery independently verified amino acids in dinosaur tissues, including the collagen signature amino acid, hydroxylated proline.
**Asara then combined two mass-spec technologies, linear ion trap and hybrid linear ion trap/Orbitrap, to sequence the proteins. The final results: eight collagen peptides and 149 amino acids from four different samples. Multiple validation steps verified the findings, they said. **
In a phylogenetic analysis, the hadrosaur was placed on the same family-tree branch with T. rex, in the same group as chicken and ostrich, and more distantly, to alligator and lizard, though not enough sequence data is available to definitively link the two dinosaurs with modern poultry, said Chris Organ, a co-author of the study, and a postdoctoral fellow in organismic and evolutionary biology at Harvard.
 
buffalo said:
I read the links several years ago.

From the second link April 30, 2009:

…
Initial observation suggested that the fossil was even better preserved than the* T. r*ex fossil, though it was 12 million years older. After demineralization, bone fragments showed** “marked preservation of original tissues and molecules, with microstructures resembling soft, transparent vessels, cells, and fibrous matrix,” the researchers said in a statement. **
**Subsequent immunoblotting and immunochemistry confirmed the presence of collagen, laminin and elastin proteins from the bone. Bone cells and blood vessels were also extracted from the bone. **
“Our findings demonstrated that it did contain basement membrane matrix,” said Raghu Kalluri, chief of the Division of Matrix Biology at Beth Israel Deaconess and a co-author on the Science study. Basement membranes, which degrade and regenerate during development and wound repair, comprise a continuous extracellular matrix that links endothelial, epithelial, muscle, or neuronal cells and their adjacent stroma.
*In situ *mass spectrometery independently verified amino acids in dinosaur tissues, including the collagen signature amino acid, hydroxylated proline.
**Asara then combined two mass-spec technologies, linear ion trap and hybrid linear ion trap/Orbitrap, to sequence the proteins. The final results: eight collagen peptides and 149 amino acids from four different samples. Multiple validation steps verified the findings, they said. **
In a phylogenetic analysis, the hadrosaur was placed on the same family-tree branch with T. rex, in the same group as chicken and ostrich, and more distantly, to alligator and lizard, though not enough sequence data is available to definitively link the two dinosaurs with modern poultry, said Chris Organ, a co-author of the study, and a postdoctoral fellow in organismic and evolutionary biology at Harvard.
Click to expand...
Yes? That’s why I posed the links, it had more detail into what was found instead of just calling it “soft tissue”. What’s your point?
 
liquidpele said:
Yes? That’s why I posed the links, it had more detail into what was found instead of just calling it “soft tissue”. What’s your point?
Click to expand...
The point is the evo’s were fighting the find as being impossible.
 
buffalo said:
The point is the evo’s were fighting the find as being impossible.
Click to expand...
There probably was some disbelief, but oh look, it only look like a month to prove it correct and reproduce the results.
Wow, science sure doesn’t work does it? Those crazy scientists with their evidence, peer review, and reproducible results.
 
liquidpele said:
There probably was some disbelief, but oh look, it only look like a month to prove it correct and reproduce the results.
Wow, science sure doesn’t work does it? Those crazy scientists with their evidence, peer review, and reproducible results.
Click to expand...
Good - now the only remaining argument is how old these samples are.
 
buffalo said:
Good - now the only remaining argument is how old these samples are.
Click to expand...
The finding of these proteins and organic matter within fossil doesn’t change the dating methods already used to establish the age.
 
liquidpele said:
The finding of these proteins and organic matter within fossil doesn’t change the dating methods already used to establish the age.
Click to expand...
Right.😉

As i posted how much in research money is this now going to cost us to make sure we find corroborating evidence?
 
buffalo said:
Right.😉

As i posted how much in research money is this now going to cost us to make sure we find corroborating evidence?
Click to expand...
No one is stopping you from going out and getting a degree in such things and testing it yourself. You simply don’t like the idea that people claim things you don’t agree with, so you invent reasons why they can’t be right.
 
liquidpele said:
No one is stopping you from going out and getting a degree in such things and testing it yourself. You simply don’t like the idea that people claim things you don’t agree with, so you invent reasons why they can’t be right.
Click to expand...
I invented no reasons.

Please share with me the peer reviewed science that showed that this tissue could not survive for 60 million years.

After that show me the peer reviewed science that now shows it can.
 
liquidpele said:
There probably was some disbelief, but oh look, it only look like a month to prove it correct and reproduce the results. Wow, science sure doesn’t work does it? Those crazy scientists with their evidence, peer review, and reproducible results.
Click to expand...
Liquipele, it’s a good thing the scientists proved it when they did – otherwise the biblical cosmogonic myth would have been the only game left in town!
 
Touchstone said:
From the Wikipedia article on the subject:
Click to expand...
“it is doubtful whether the genuine discovery of mammalian fossils in Precambrian rocks would overthrow the theory of evolution instantly, although, if authentic, such a discovery would indicate serious errors in modern understanding about the evolutionary process.”

I find this remarkable. I couldn’t have made up a satirical version better than this real one.

Again, the “rabbit found in the Cambrian” claim heard 'round the world is addressed here, first, by hedging the bet and moving the goalpost. It’s now a “Precambrian” rabbit. And there’s the admission – it “wouldn’t overthrow the theory of evolution immediately”. Why not? Well, obviously, evolutionists are already fully prepared with a suitcase full of excuses, equivocations, re-thinkings, and expressions of marvel and wonderment to discuss how a rabbit found in Precambrian rocks fits the evolutionary model quite well.

But the Wikipedia article moves on – it’s not satisfied with mere astonishment. It is willing to admit that such a discovery would indicate “serious errors” in modern understanding of the evolutionary process.

There we have it. From the infallible voice of evolutionists themselves. Even a precambrian rabbit wouldn’t falsify evolutionary theory. It would merely “indicate” some “serious errors” in our “understanding”.

But now, we would have “better understanding” and we know that evolution has produced rabbits in the earliest rock strata. That would be a wonderful moment for Darwinian theory because our “knowledge just lept forward”!

We would merely need to “readjust” evolutionary theory to “incorporate these new findings”.

It really shouldn’t need to be any clearer than that. Even an example offered as one an absurdly-obvious falsifier of Darwinian claims, in the end, does not falsify the theory as a whole. It only “indicates” some serious errors – which can be covered-up just like Haeckel’s human embryos with fish-gills were years ago.

Evolution – the universal solution to every imaginable problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top