• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evolution answers

icebear said:
The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:
Click to expand...
That was a maximal display of entire categories of ignorance about evolution (and biology!) so I hope that you are merely regurgitating some deluded creationist web site, icebear :D!

It starts with the delusion that there were experiments on fruit flies that tried to get non-fruit flies from mutations only.
Then it just gets idiotic :jaw-dropp!
 
justintime said:
But that was not the point I raised. I said:

"It was reasoned if 2 dropouts can design a computer surely even chimpanzees can master it. It turned out a humbling experience for college students competing with chimps in the experiment."
Click to expand...

Alright. I accept that you raised it. The real question is whether you're willing to admit that your point is moot, at best, given that the two dropouts that you cited actually did not design computers.

That's before the failures in logic are addressed.
 
turingtest said:
To be fair to JiT, though, I get the sense that he really believes the nonsense he says; he doesn't know the first thing about anything he's talking about, but he's sincerely ignorant.
Click to expand...

I doubt it.

The absurdities are too patent.

Scientific investigation is pointless because 65% of studies are fraudulent?

Scientists believing only humans are intelligent?

Chimps are more intelligent than humans?

He's playing us.

It still serves some purpose, much as "the fool" does in some forms of argument.

But he is clearly playing a role.
 
icebear said:
The fraud of evolution:
Click to expand...
Yet another ignorant video about evolution on the internet!
The author stupidly thinks that people think that there are no errors in science and that science never progresses :eek:!
The usual creationist lies, e.g.
* There is no surprise here. Darwin is proceeding by his usual method of asking a question and then answering it. Creationist quote miners classically omit his answer
* The usual lies about no transitional forms - every fossil is a transitional form.
* A total lie about fraudulent fossils being manufactured while displaying actual fossils!
* cites Duane Gish - a biochemist only known for his nasty debating tactic - the "Gish Gallop".
* Patterson Misquoted
* insanely thinking that a tiny number of actual fraudulent fossils disproves the millions of other fossils (along with other insanities!):
* Archaeoraptor fake.
* one "Brontosaurus" (actually Apatosaurus) reconstruction that turned out to be a Apatosaurus body with an unrelated head.
* the idiocy of the Piltdown man!
* the mistake of the Nebraska Man. The video idiotically uses the artist impression! The narrator then lies about the "Nebraska Man being taught to children as fact". The tooth was attributed to an anthropoid ape in 1922, its attribution was withdrawn in 1927. It would be a fairly dumb textbook editor to include Nebraska Man when it was newly discovered and a stupid one to include it after 1927.
* Claims that Peking Man was a fraud which is a lie.
* Claims that Neanderthals were modern men with severe arthritis
* a lie about "faked" peppered moth pictures. The pictures were mostly staged for textbooks to show the difference in pigmentation against tree bark. There are actual pictures of peppered moths on tree trunks.
* the usual Haeckel faked his pictures of embryos to make them look more alike than they are. He did not. He "enhanced" them and that was corrected.
* the ignorance of thinking that "spontaneous generation or abiogenesis or chemosynthesis" are the same :eek:!
* Quote mining George Wald, Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate, 1954 (who did though use the term "spontaneous generation" in that article).
* the inane statement that "the global stack of index fossils exists nowhere on Earth"! Everyone knows that: The geological column is a fiction, existing on paper only. The entire geological column does not exist anywhere on the earth.
​

The last insult is about evolution not being "remotely good science" which is ironic given the creationism is not remotely science at all :jaw-dropp!
 
justintime said:
But that was not the point I raised. I said:

"It was reasoned if 2 dropouts can design a computer surely even chimpanzees can master it. It turned out a humbling experience for college students competing with chimps in the experiment."
Click to expand...

But there was no reasoning behind that claim -- just more fallacies, falsehoods, fakery, and fabrications. :D
 
justintime said:
Chimps are smarter than college students the controlled test proved it.
Click to expand...
Without a citation to the test that showed that chimps are smarter (e.g. have a higher IQ) than students, we will have to assume that it is a lie, justintime.

If you are referring to the test of photographic memory (not intelligence) where juvenile chimps beat their mothers and adult students then you are lying, justintime.
Chimps beat humans in memory test (3 December 2007)
 
justintime said:
And the test concluded the chimp beat the college student. The chimp therefore outperformed the college student.
Click to expand...
And the test about photographic memory (not intelligence) concluded the chimp beat the chimp's mother . The chimp therefore outperformed the chimp's mother.
Are you making the rather trivial point that you cannot understand what you read about that test, justintime?
 
justintime said:
I said:

"It was reasoned if 2 dropouts can design a computer surely even chimpanzees can master it. It turned out a humbling experience for college students competing with chimps in the experiment."
Click to expand...
That was a totally "unreasonable" statement, justintime :eek:.
1. No one except in your imagination reasoned that.
2. No one (except you with your new ability to read minds!) said that the college students tough that the experience was humbling.
3. No computer designed by "2 dropouts" was used in the experiment. The remaining Apple I's are in museums.
4. The chimps did not master the computer.
They did not login,.
They did not use a keyboard.
They did not use a mouse.
They did not type Shakespeare's sonnets :D!
They learned the ability to remember what appeared on the screen and touch the screen in the appropriate places.
5. The university students also learned the ability to remember what appeared on the screen and touch the screen in the appropriate places.
 
Reality Check said:
They learned the ability to remember what appeared on the screen and touch the screen in the appropriate places.
5. The university students also learned the ability to remember what appeared on the screen and touch the screen in the appropriate places.
Click to expand...

The exact same test could be performed with a deck of playing cards. Going with a touch screen just makes thing easier for the researcher. A chimp outperforming a human on a memory test using playing cards does not mean the chimp "can play cards."
 
icebear said:
The ONLY thing which prevents chimps and gorillas from speaking English is the lack of voluntary control over breathing. They learn deaf signs easily.
Click to expand...
It's not as simple as that.

They can learn signs, but their usage is much more basic than human language.

A lot of Koko's usage was more of a very elaborate Clever Hans type of system. And a LOT of what she "said" had to be interpreted by her owners. It was largely difficult for anyone else to independently understand her signs, or to communicate back to her.

Hey, it's still pretty amazing, but English language it is not.



Also, many primates do have SOME voluntary control over their breathing, because they can also be trained to play wind instruments such as recorders.


So, chimps and gorillas may be smarter than horses. But, it would take a LOT more than merely better control over breathing to allow them to speak English.

Humans innately develop new languages, in a manner of a couple of generations, when there is none around they can use already: Such as deaf children in schools before sign language was standardized. Or, the pidgin languages that develop, when there are people working together who only speak a multitude of incompatible languages.

If other primates also evolved this ability, we would see it in the wild as an innate characteristic, even if it took a different form than speech.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
You are displaying your ignorance, icebear, this is what a Neanderthal actually looked like not the ignorant fantasies of Danny Vendramini.
Click to expand...

What we actually know about Neanderthals is entirely consistent with Vendramini's reconstructions and not with the standard images which corespond to the Neanderthal having become a poster child for kum-bay-ah pseudo-religion:

  • Their DNA was roughly halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee.
  • Their footprints were more ape-like than human (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_anatomy)
  • Their rib cages were conical as are those of apes (to make way for the huge upper body musculature of primates); ours are cylindrical.
  • Their hips were set much wider than ours and, likewise their bone structure was much heavier than ours.
  • Their eye sockets were much larger than ours and set much higher on their foreheads.
  • They were the absolute apex predator of the European ice age and nobody has ever found a Neanderthal needle. Creatures with a 6" ice-age fur coat don't NEED needles. Cro Magnon (ancient human) needles are common.
  • Their skulls were a very good match for an ape's profile (Vendramini) and a bad match for one of ours.
  • They were cannibalistic and basically viewed the living world as neatly divided into two categories, i.e. their own family group, and meat. Paabo's claim that recent specimens show evidence of inbreeding are what you'd expect given that the greatest danger to Neanderthals was almost certainly other Neanderthal families.

Rob Gargett ("Subversive Archaeologist") notes that even were you to draw a more human-like Neanderthal with the eyes and nose as large as the bones indicate they would have to be, what you end up with is still outlandish:

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/...oYiqWb0-t2yZhXo613uB6KrhQCxpiGsqjrJAvRus_.jpg
 
icebear said:
What we actually know about Neanderthals is entirely consistent with Vendramini's reconstructions and not with the standard images which corespond to the Neanderthal having become a poster child for kum-bay-ah pseudo-religion:

  • Their DNA was roughly halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee.
  • Their footprints were more ape-like than human (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_anatomy)
  • Their rib cages were conical as are those of apes (to make way for the huge upper body musculature of primates); ours are cylindrical.
  • Their hips were set much wider than ours and, likewise their bone structure was much heavier than ours.
  • Their eye sockets were much larger than ours and set much higher on their foreheads.
  • They were the absolute apex predator of the European ice age and nobody has ever found a Neanderthal needle. Creatures with a 6" ice-age fur coat don't NEED needles. Cro Magnon (ancient human) needles are common.
  • Their skulls were a very good match for an ape's profile (Vendramini) and a bad match for one of ours.
  • They were cannibalistic and basically viewed the living world as neatly divided into two categories, i.e. their own family group, and meat. Paabo's claim that recent specimens show evidence of inbreeding are what you'd expect given that the greatest danger to Neanderthals was almost certainly other Neanderthal families.

Rob Gargett ("Subversive Archaeologist") notes that even were you to draw a more human-like Neanderthal with the eyes and nose as large as the bones indicate they would have to be, what you end up with is still outlandish:

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/...oYiqWb0-t2yZhXo613uB6KrhQCxpiGsqjrJAvRus_.jpg
Click to expand...

You can look at a skull and tell what thoughts the brain that was in it had?
 
ApolloGnomon said:
Wow. Those aren't based on actual data. That's just nonsense.
Click to expand...

That YouTube video caused the one below to be suggested:

http://youtu.be/Uj94Ts6EbFU

A 2010 lecture by Carl Zimmer.

Again, debating a "fool" can lead to enlightenment!

Oh, and with icebear stating "Their DNA was roughly halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee.", maybe eventually the twain shall meet!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom