tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post5735067950104263688..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Evolutionists Walk it Back Again: Human Evolution is More a Muddy Delta Than a Branching TreeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39534638269323929632016-04-04T08:56:47.820-07:002016-04-04T08:56:47.820-07:00natchuster
"The claim is that the evidence is...natchuster<br />"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." <br /><br />This reminded me something written about some years back in 2010 by Bob Grant who asked, "Should Evolutionary Theory Evolve?"<br /><br />http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27894/title/Should-Evolutionary-Theory-Evolve-/<br /><br />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 :DChaparral Earthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00618976919417073750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84373774121346981472016-04-04T08:40:01.052-07:002016-04-04T08:40:01.052-07:00LOL! Scientific knowledge is the disease and Loui...LOL! Scientific knowledge is the disease and Louis is the cure. :D<br /><br />That made my morning.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75617717521131574752016-04-04T08:25:51.961-07:002016-04-04T08:25:51.961-07:00Keep on whining, dirt worshipper. You and ghosthum...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.<br /><br />You 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Oh, I almost forgot to ask. What does the Flying Dirt Monster's asteroid smell like today?<br /><br />ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35912131370005539092016-04-04T07:37:08.206-07:002016-04-04T07:37:08.206-07:00Scott:
So basically, the pattern of life is evide...Scott:<br /><br />So 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. <br /> <br /><br />natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34752700239080701702016-04-04T06:56:05.471-07:002016-04-04T06:56:05.471-07:00Nat, Even Darwin knew about hybridization, which w...Nat, 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. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56312335995978660012016-04-04T03:33:02.790-07:002016-04-04T03:33:02.790-07:00Cornelius: "Then you complain that criticism ...Cornelius: "<i>Then you complain that criticism is inhospitable."</i><br /><br />Nobody 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?<br /><br />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?William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66204399665238728532016-04-03T15:38:27.855-07:002016-04-03T15:38:27.855-07:00See, it's like this: evolution predicts that l...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.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89629672147766304462016-04-03T13:59:00.930-07:002016-04-03T13:59:00.930-07:00Dirt Worshipping Bible: Genesis
1. In the beginni...Dirt Worshipping Bible: Genesis<br /><br />1. In the beginning, there was Dirt and Dirt said, let there be life.<br />2. And life sprung out of Dirt, fully replicating.<br />3. And Dirt saw that it was very good.<br />4. And from Dirt came all living creatures upon the land, in the firmament and in the sea, great and small.<br />5. For this reason, it is said unto this day, "Dirt thou art and to Dirt thou shalt return.<br />6. And the Lord Dirt looked at everything it had created on Earth and said, "It is very good."<br />7. Therefore worship the Lord Dirt thy God with all your might that ye may live long and prosper.<br /><br />ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51217726312832760652016-04-03T10:59:35.253-07:002016-04-03T10:59:35.253-07:00evotard Thorton:
LOL! Good Louis. Keep screaming ...evotard Thorton:<br /><br /><i>LOL! Good Louis. Keep screaming those potty-mouthed obscenities. Show all the readers what a classy place Cornelius wants this place to be.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />You morons need to compile a Bible or something. You would look better.<br /><br />ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80175582986858220972016-04-03T10:54:20.649-07:002016-04-03T10:54:20.649-07:00LOL! Good Louis. Keep screaming those potty-mout...LOL! Good Louis. Keep screaming those potty-mouthed obscenities. Show all the readers what a classy place Cornelius wants this place to be.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81707696663332603292016-04-03T10:46:11.033-07:002016-04-03T10:46:11.033-07:00evotard Thorton:
Ken Ham's Creation Museum
Y...evotard Thorton:<br /><br /><i>Ken Ham's Creation Museum</i><br /><br />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.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18028832297306216662016-04-03T10:40:35.624-07:002016-04-03T10:40:35.624-07:00Frankfurter
YAWN!
I know. Actual scientific evi...<i>Frankfurter<br /><br />YAWN!</i><br /><br />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.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50945430614517579292016-04-03T10:37:31.465-07:002016-04-03T10:37:31.465-07:00evotard Thornton:
Actually Louis I changed my min...evotard Thornton:<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />LOL<br /><br />A lying, dirt-worshipping psychopath/evotard preaching righteousness to Christians. How precious.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29557311867533045122016-04-03T10:36:14.166-07:002016-04-03T10:36:14.166-07:00Anonymous
"Hawk reference the work of Svante ...Anonymous<br />"Hawk reference the work of Svante Pääbo, one of the world's leading experts on human evolutionary genetics."<br /><br />Thanks, this makes it so much more clearer now where Hawk's got his Hollywood script:<br /><br />"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."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/02/06/new-revelations-tracing-indigenous-dna" rel="nofollow">Svante Paabo:</a><br /><br />YAWN!<br />Chaparral Earthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00618976919417073750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27359804097998835332016-04-03T10:34:46.314-07:002016-04-03T10:34:46.314-07:00CH:
Evolutionists are like trolls.
They are evi...CH: <br /><br /><i>Evolutionists are like trolls.</i><br /><br />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.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9804898052743240352016-04-03T10:33:21.745-07:002016-04-03T10:33:21.745-07:00Actually Louis I changed my mind. An obscenity sp...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.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15185072353405177602016-04-03T10:21:00.492-07:002016-04-03T10:21:00.492-07:00By the way, ghosthumper (aka Thornton), are you go...By the way, ghosthumper (aka Thornton), are you going to stop commenting on Cornelius's blog as you promised the other day?<br /><br />Never 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". LOLRebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48960941171833826842016-04-03T10:20:21.097-07:002016-04-03T10:20:21.097-07:00Neither is controversial and neither casts the sli...<i>Neither is controversial and neither casts the slightest doubt on the well known and empirically observed mechanisms of evolution.</i><br /><br />Even evolutionists admit that “How fundamental innovations originate" and “How body pattern evolves" are not explained by evolution.<br /><br />Your response that "Neither is controversial", of course, simply further confirms the point.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>But I'm sure you had a good reason for the omission.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33652548297947562772016-04-03T09:54:07.063-07:002016-04-03T09:54:07.063-07:00Dirt worshipping evotard:
But I'm sure you ha...Dirt worshipping evotard:<br /><br /><i>But I'm sure you had a good reason for the omission.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58265794847178009962016-04-03T09:19:54.782-07:002016-04-03T09:19:54.782-07:00If knowledge grows via conjecture and criticism, t...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?<br /><br />IOW, 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? <br /><br />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?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41008725448412013462016-04-03T08:27:51.193-07:002016-04-03T08:27:51.193-07:00Cornelius Hunter
“How body pattern evolves in nat...<i>Cornelius Hunter<br /><br />“How body pattern evolves in nature remains largely unknown.”</i><br /><br />It is interesting how you quote-mined the Significance overview of the paper and cut out the explanatory part<br /><br /><i>Significance<br /><br />How body pattern evolves in nature remains largely unknown.<br />Although recent progress has been made on the molecular<br />basis of losing morphological features during adaptation to<br />new environments (regressive evolution), there are few well<br />worked out examples of how morphological features may be<br />gained in natural species (constructive evolution). Here we use genetic crosses to study how three spine stickleback fish have<br />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.</i><br /><br />But I'm sure you had a good reason for the omission.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6628102328715611102016-04-03T08:18:07.285-07:002016-04-03T08:18:07.285-07:00Cornelius Hunter
“How fundamental innovations ori...<i>Cornelius Hunter<br /><br />“How fundamental innovations originate in evolution remains one of the most enigmatic questions of biology.”<br /><br />http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/57/13/3531.full<br /><br />“How body pattern evolves in nature remains largely unknown.”<br /><br />http://www.pnas.org/content/111/38/13912.full.pdf</i><br /><br />LOL! This keeps getting better by the minute!<br /><br />You first link points to the 2006 paper<br /><br /><a href="http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/57/13/3531.full" rel="nofollow">Catching a ‘hopeful monster’: shepherd's purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris) as a model system to study the evolution of flower development </a><br /><br />You second to the 2014 paper<br /><br /> <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/111/38/13912.full.pdf" rel="nofollow">Evolved tooth gain in sticklebacks is associated with a cis-regulatory allele of Bmp6</a><br /><br />Neither is controversial and neither casts the slightest doubt on the well known and empirically observed mechanisms of evolution.<br /><br />I wonder how many of your Creationist groupies actually checked your references? You always count on that number being zero, right?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81269576931722286202016-04-03T08:12:12.482-07:002016-04-03T08:12:12.482-07:00you make such ridiculous over the top claims like ...<i>you make such ridiculous over the top claims like that one ...</i><br /><br />Sorry, I'm not the one who is making "ridiculous over the top claims." For example:<br /><br />“How fundamental innovations originate in evolution remains one of the most enigmatic questions of biology.”<br /><br />http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/57/13/3531.full<br /><br />“How body pattern evolves in nature remains largely unknown.”<br /><br />http://www.pnas.org/content/111/38/13912.full.pdf<br /><br />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 Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74235978592588802732016-04-03T07:57:31.533-07:002016-04-03T07:57:31.533-07:00Aside from the fact that evolutionists have failed...<i>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. </i><br /><br />LOL! 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.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36188167110749318262016-04-03T07:48:55.993-07:002016-04-03T07:48:55.993-07:00Frankfurter
This is puzzling, since Hawk's di...<i>Frankfurter<br /><br />This is puzzling, since Hawk's didn't provide any evidence whatsoever.</i><br /><br />Hawk reference the work of <a href="http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/staff/paabo/home.html" rel="nofollow">Svante Pääbo</a>, 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.<br /><br />Of course you aren't looking to actually learn about the topic, just hand wave away the evidence like all Creationists do.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.com