Real Science making a comeback!

[dawg80]

"This may change everything we thought we knew about evolution."

The conclusion from an article I just read re: isolated tribes in Melanesia. Seems what scientist thought they "knew" about the DNA of those people turns out to be wrong. And, there is a gap in the sequence that cannot be explained. SO!! the evolutionists just invent a reason. Why, there must be some heretofore unknown hominid, not just Neanderthal and Denisovan, that existed and contributed to the DNA of these people. And the real kicker, "the fact there is no physical evidence, whatsoever, of this previously unknown hominid, shows why scientists need to study this more." And, get HUGE grants of taxpayer money to do it!!!

And study, what? Something that doesn't exist?

Another kicker from the article. "It could be that science's interpretation of the DNA record was in error, and no such gap exists. After all, THE TOTAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF THE DENISOVAN DNA CAME FROM A SINGLE FINGER BONE AND A FEW TEETH." Really? A whole element of a scientific "fact" was drawn from such skimpy evidence?

Yet....you are considered a moron if you don't bow down and accept as SCIENTIFIC FACT any nonsense these scientists spout off! I'd say you are a moron if you do! They just reversed themselves. Oh....never mind. Now we want you to believe __________ (fill in the blank).

Evolution is NOT real science. And we have plenty of evidence to support that contention.

[JuBru]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp1eZdtkdQM

[Guisslapp]

We learn more about human history every day. The fact that you can trace human heritage based on genetics only bolsters the evidence for evolution.

[dawg80]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp1eZdtkdQM

On "faith."

[dawg80]

We learn more about human history every day. The fact that you can trace human heritage based on genetics only bolsters the evidence for evolution.

What "genetics" would that be? The same genetics that evolutionists just called into question themselves?

[dawg80]

I am actually neutral on the question of evolution. I mean, I don't KNOW if there is truth to the theory as presented, but I hold open the possibility. There are elements of it that pass the eye test of being in the realm of science. No, there is not sufficient evidence to confirm it, but one can logically accept it as a "likely explanation." I particularly like the concept of natural selection. That makes sense. Those individuals with certain traits (such as my height example) survive some change to their environment, and thus only their genes survive to continue the species. Makes sense that whatever that trait is that helped them survive would become prominent in both the genotype and the phenotype of that species.

But, natural selection is only a small part of what evolutionists want you to believe. It is not just about certain groups (with favorable traits) surviving. Oh no! it's about a small horse becoming a giant whale! Different species altogether. It's about drawing a LONG list of conclusions from scant evidence. It's about reversing themselves on most of their own "facts."

So, evolution, as a real science, FAILS the eye test. Sorry....I am a REAL scientist. It's never about what one wants to BELIEVE. It's only about what IS.

[Guisslapp]

Your eye test fails because your mind's eye has no reference point for imagining hundreds of millions of years of gradual changes amassing over time to produce something that is far more transformational.

The science is solid - your cognitive abilities seem to be what is limiting you.

[DONW]

Here is an interesting article on evolution. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat06.html
The oldest known hominid, or humanlike species, has been dated at 4.4 million years old. Another species, which is yet to be confirmed as a hominid, has been dated at 6 million years old. Scientists estimate that the hominid lineage diverged from the ape lineage 5 to 8 million years ago. Homo sapiens, the species to which we belong, has existed for about 100,000 years.

[DONW]

Where did we come from? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li...faq/cat02.html

[dawg80]

Your eye test fails because your mind's eye has no reference point for imagining hundreds of millions of years of gradual changes amassing over time to produce something that is far more transformational.

The science is solid - your cognitive abilities seem to be what is limiting you.

Where is all this evidence of these gradual changes amassed over hundreds of millions of years?

Or, is one finger bone and few teeth enough?

Actually, there is more physical evidence than that. But you still couldn't fill one 1/2-ton pickup bed with all of it. That's still pretty scant. Or, is my cognitive abilities lacking and that's why I can't see that a hundred pounds of bones is all anyone, with faith, needs?

[Guisslapp]

Where is all this evidence of these gradual changes amassed over hundreds of millions of years?

Or, is one finger bone and few teeth enough?

Actually, there is more physical evidence than that. But you still couldn't fill one 1/2-ton pickup bed with all of it. That's still pretty scant. Or, is my cognitive abilities lacking and that's why I can't see that a hundred pounds of bones is all anyone, with faith, needs?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw0MLJJJbqc

[dawg80]

Where does Bigfoot fit into the evolutionary chain (tree)?

[dawg80]

Yo! where are our evolutionists on this question? Where's Bigfoot in the tree?

[Guisslapp]

Not sure what you are talking about.

[dawg80]

Not sure what you are talking about.

I knew you are a little out of touch, but I thought even you have heard about Bigfoot!