Fails Again
First it was a tree, then it was a bush, then it was a network, and now it is a muddy delta. The evolutionary model of how the species are supposed to be related has failed over and over. And John Hawks’ latest version of this moving target reveals yet again that the theory of evolution is not explanatory, and that the evidence contradicts the theory. Hawks explains that the latest thinking on how the primates evolved “is no evolutionary tree. Our evolutionary history is like a braided stream.”Evolution is a blind guide—it is always wrong. It is always pointing in the wrong direction, and evolutionists are always having to walk it back and do their damage control.
When will they learn?
I see. You have no evidence Hawk's description of the genetic evidence for hominid lineages interbreeding is wrong so it's just the usual mud flinging.
ReplyDeleteAs someone else said,
Step 1: Make ridiculous claim.
Step 2: When all else fails, resort to mockery.
Anonymous:
Delete"I see. You have no evidence Hawk's description of the genetic evidence for hominid lineages interbreeding is wrong so it's just the usual mud flinging."
This is puzzling, since Hawk's didn't provide any evidence whatsoever. He merely recited a long lengthy 'faith affirmation' using the same old stale Victorian Era opinion of blacks still ending up as inferior as comparison to white. The entire page was simply one long story that nobody is allowed to question.
Anonymous:
"Step 1: Make ridiculous claim."
The only accurate thing about Hawk's claim is that the story gets more and more muddled and murky.
Anonymous
"Step 2: When all else fails, resort to mockery."
And as par for your response, you mocked the fact that Cornelius criticized what is clearly nothing more than a fable, not scientific explanation of anything.
You have no evidence Hawk's description of the genetic evidence for hominid lineages interbreeding is wrong
DeleteAside from the fact that evolutionists have failed to explain how evolution in general, and humans evolving from a ancient ape in particular, could *actually* occur. And aside from the fact that evolution's fundamental predictions have failed over and over:
https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/
What evolutionists have done, in rare moments, is admit they don't know how the species could have evolved (although they'r still certain evolution is a fact).
so it's just the usual mud flinging
The OP may not seem very accommodating to say that evolution is a blind guide—it is always wrong. It is always pointing in the wrong direction, and evolutionists are always having to walk it back and do their damage control. Those are, however, the facts.
So you posit a religiously-driven, scientifically ridiculous idea, which just gets worse over time, insist that it is a fact, misrepresent the science and history to the public, and blackball dissent. Then you complain that criticism is inhospitable.
Sorry, but I'm afraid hospitality went out the window with Carrie Buck.
Frankfurter
DeleteThis is puzzling, since Hawk's didn't provide any evidence whatsoever.
Hawk reference the work of Svante Pääbo, one of the world's leading experts on human evolutionary genetics. Pääbo has done ground breaking research on both the Neandertal and Denisovan genomes. His work clearly shows the interwoven "braided stream" pattern of hominid DNA that Hawk was describing.
Of course you aren't looking to actually learn about the topic, just hand wave away the evidence like all Creationists do.
Aside from the fact that evolutionists have failed to explain how evolution in general, and humans evolving from a ancient ape in particular, could *actually* occur.
DeleteLOL! See, it's because you make such ridiculous over the top claims like that one that nobody in science takes you seriously. The amazing thing is that you don't realize what a parody of an internet creationist you've become. Or maybe you do realize and just don't care.
you make such ridiculous over the top claims like that one ...
DeleteSorry, I'm not the one who is making "ridiculous over the top claims." For example:
“How fundamental innovations originate in evolution remains one of the most enigmatic questions of biology.”
http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/57/13/3531.full
“How body pattern evolves in nature remains largely unknown.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/38/13912.full.pdf
What you just referred to as a "ridiculous over the top claim" is, in reality, a fact. But evolutionists mandate their religiously-driven, failed, "theory", and any criticism is "ridiculous" and "over the top." Evolutionists are living in a separate reality.
Cornelius Hunter
Delete“How fundamental innovations originate in evolution remains one of the most enigmatic questions of biology.”
http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/57/13/3531.full
“How body pattern evolves in nature remains largely unknown.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/38/13912.full.pdf
LOL! This keeps getting better by the minute!
You first link points to the 2006 paper
Catching a ‘hopeful monster’: shepherd's purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris) as a model system to study the evolution of flower development
You second to the 2014 paper
Evolved tooth gain in sticklebacks is associated with a cis-regulatory allele of Bmp6
Neither is controversial and neither casts the slightest doubt on the well known and empirically observed mechanisms of evolution.
I wonder how many of your Creationist groupies actually checked your references? You always count on that number being zero, right?
Cornelius Hunter
Delete“How body pattern evolves in nature remains largely unknown.”
It is interesting how you quote-mined the Significance overview of the paper and cut out the explanatory part
Significance
How body pattern evolves in nature remains largely unknown.
Although recent progress has been made on the molecular
basis of losing morphological features during adaptation to
new environments (regressive evolution), there are few well
worked out examples of how morphological features may be
gained in natural species (constructive evolution). Here we use genetic crosses to study how three spine stickleback fish have
increased their tooth number in a new freshwater environment. Genetic mapping and gene expression experiments suggest regulatory changes have occurred in the gene for a bone morphogenetic signaling molecule, leading to increased expression in the freshwater fish that have more teeth. Our studies suggest that changes in gene regulation may underlie both gain and loss traits during vertebrate evolution.
But I'm sure you had a good reason for the omission.
Dirt worshipping evotard:
DeleteBut I'm sure you had a good reason for the omission.
I'm sure that the reason is that the omitted part does not support the evotard's RM+NS BS. Gene regulation is obviously the result of an epigenetic mechanism, i.e., it is an adaptation system that is genetically programmed in the organism. It was designed for the purpose of adaptation. There is no need for any RM+NS fairy tale. We see this mechanism everywhere in living organism.
Again, the greatest enemy of stochastic search mechanisms (e.g., RM+NS) is the dreaded combinatorial explosion. It kills the evotard's stupid religion dead before it is even born.
ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
Neither is controversial and neither casts the slightest doubt on the well known and empirically observed mechanisms of evolution.
DeleteEven evolutionists admit that “How fundamental innovations originate" and “How body pattern evolves" are not explained by evolution.
Your response that "Neither is controversial", of course, simply further confirms the point.
This, along with your next response that "neither casts the slightest doubt on the well known and empirically observed mechanisms of evolution" simply illustrate how evolution is impervious to the evidence. Evolution can fail to provide the most fundamental justification and explanation to its basic claims, and yet remains unscathed. Those fundamental failures do not cast the slightest doubt. We can't explain how these wonders are supposed to have evolved, but everything is fine.
But I'm sure you had a good reason for the omission.
It only gets worse. Directed adaptation is not evolution, remember? The stickleback has directed adaptation capabilities that contradict evolution. Trying to use them to cover over the failure just adds fuel to the fire.
Darwin's God has discussed this many time, but then again, you would know that. Evolutionists are like trolls. And this exchange is a good example.
By the way, ghosthumper (aka Thornton), are you going to stop commenting on Cornelius's blog as you promised the other day?
DeleteNever mind. It's ok. We all know that you evotards lie all the time and cannot keep your word. It's in your genes or something. Besides, you have an unholy obsession with "creationists". LOL
Actually Louis I changed my mind. An obscenity spewing ignoramus like you makes a perfect spokesman for the Creationist movement. I'm sure Cornelius is quite happy having you as the exemplar for the Christian ideals he'd like everyone to adopt. Especially the cussing.
DeleteCH:
DeleteEvolutionists are like trolls.
They are evil psychopaths, IMO. They are relentless weavers of lies and deception. They are like religious jihadists,programmed with a single purpose: to inflict harm on humans. Demonic influence or even possession comes to mind.
Anonymous
Delete"Hawk reference the work of Svante Pääbo, one of the world's leading experts on human evolutionary genetics."
Thanks, this makes it so much more clearer now where Hawk's got his Hollywood script:
"Svante Paabo: "In the West there were Neanderthals, in the East there were Denisovans, maybe other forms of humans too that we've not yet described. The modern humans emerged somewhere in Africa, came out of Africa presumably in the Middle East. They meet Neanderthals, mix with them, continue to spread over the world. And somewhere in south-east Asia they meet Denisovans, mix with them, and continue on out through the Pacific."
Svante Paabo:
YAWN!
evotard Thornton:
DeleteActually Louis I changed my mind. An obscenity spewing ignoramus like you makes a perfect spokesman for the Creationist movement. I'm sure Cornelius is quite happy having you as the exemplar for the Christian ideals he'd like everyone to adopt. Especially the cussing.
LOL
A lying, dirt-worshipping psychopath/evotard preaching righteousness to Christians. How precious.
Frankfurter
DeleteYAWN!
I know. Actual scientific evidence always bores Creationists. That's why they never learn about any. But give them The Flintstones or the fire breathing dragons in Ken Ham's Creation Museum and they'll be mesmerized for hours.
evotard Thorton:
DeleteKen Ham's Creation Museum
Your stupid attempt at painting all Christians with the same YEC fundamentalist brush will not work here. This is one Christian that will not hesitate to tell you to take your superstitious, dirt-worshipping religion and pack it up your asteroid.
LOL! Good Louis. Keep screaming those potty-mouthed obscenities. Show all the readers what a classy place Cornelius wants this place to be.
Deleteevotard Thorton:
DeleteLOL! Good Louis. Keep screaming those potty-mouthed obscenities. Show all the readers what a classy place Cornelius wants this place to be.
You missed your calling. You should be a preacher. Oh wait. But that's exactly what you are: a self-righteous preacher man selling his stupid little dirt-worshipping religion.
You morons need to compile a Bible or something. You would look better.
ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
Dirt Worshipping Bible: Genesis
Delete1. In the beginning, there was Dirt and Dirt said, let there be life.
2. And life sprung out of Dirt, fully replicating.
3. And Dirt saw that it was very good.
4. And from Dirt came all living creatures upon the land, in the firmament and in the sea, great and small.
5. For this reason, it is said unto this day, "Dirt thou art and to Dirt thou shalt return.
6. And the Lord Dirt looked at everything it had created on Earth and said, "It is very good."
7. Therefore worship the Lord Dirt thy God with all your might that ye may live long and prosper.
ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
Cornelius: "Then you complain that criticism is inhospitable."
DeleteNobody is complaining that Mapou's criticism is inhospitable. We are saying that he has no criticism, just abusive language. If you invited several people over for dinner, would you allow one of your guests to start calling other guests names and be generally obnoxious?
This is your blog and you are the one who sets the rules and the tone of engagement. I would hope that the goal of this blog is to draw those who are sitting on the fence into the ID camp. Do you really think that approving of Mapou's behaviour is helping in this respect?
Keep on whining, dirt worshipper. You and ghosthumper are hypocritical jackasses. You just want a free rein to proselytize for your stupid little dirt worshipping cult.
DeleteYou have no respect for Cornelius but here you are on his blog, wanting special privileges. You jackasses know you despise ID proponents. You continually call them IDiots, stupid creationists, morons, etc. You love to dish it out but you can't take it.
You suffer from a serious disorder and I am the doctor who's going to cure you. I just feed you your own medicine. That's all. Just take your medicine and stop whining like spineless maggots.
Oh, I almost forgot to ask. What does the Flying Dirt Monster's asteroid smell like today?
ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
LOL! Scientific knowledge is the disease and Louis is the cure. :D
DeleteThat made my morning.
If knowledge grows via conjecture and criticism, then why would you expect a theory to start out without errors to discard? If not, what is your alternative that allows us to start out with correct theories at the outset? How does that work, in practice?
ReplyDeleteIOW, I don't see how this supposed "problem" is unique to evolutionary theory. For example, I'll ask yet again: are dinosaurs *the* explanation of fossils?
Also, are you saying there is no difference between the theory of the history of life on earth and the theory of neo-Darwinism, in that you can't be wrong about the former without being wrong about the latter?
See, it's like this: evolution predicts that life forms a branching tree shape. But the evidence shows that human evolution does not form a branching tree, but rather something else. So the evolutionary prediction fails.
ReplyDeleteNat, Even Darwin knew about hybridization, which wouldn't strictly result in a branching tree. Not to mention new means of variation, such as HGT. So, no. It's not that simple.
ReplyDeleteScott:
ReplyDeleteSo basically, the pattern of life is evidence for evolution expect where it isn't. That's one of the things I don't like about evolution. The claim is that the evidence is right there, but point out the flaws, and the evolutionists say that we knew that all along, or it actually is turned into new evidence.
natchuster
Delete"The claim is that the evidence is right there, but point out the flaws, and the evolutionists say that we knew that all along, or it actually is turned into new evidence."
This reminded me something written about some years back in 2010 by Bob Grant who asked, "Should Evolutionary Theory Evolve?"
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27894/title/Should-Evolutionary-Theory-Evolve-/
In the forward after he does the customary required spitting on Lamark, he then extols Darwin and Medell and how they reset the rules of biology. However, look where we are today. Suddenly Lamarkism looks good because many continued to have an interest in his works and have pursued a science discipline in Epigenetic research which has highlighted the possible inheritance of behavioral traits acquired by the previous generations. In any event, when this subject first started appearing in journals, it was spat upon and the usual derogatory insults were all over these discussion boards. But then suddenly they are clasping onto it as their own. Kind of like Junk DNA, but then the turn around. Suddenly Darwin no doubt knew this all along too. The only truly evolving thing is the theory itself, with the exception that it evolves with massive amounts of intended purpose and goals. And yes :D