Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution.
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 106 of 117 (97274)
04-02-2004 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Mnenth
04-02-2004 4:37 PM


And you're dead wrong about Lucy, too. There was no "totally human legbone" involved.
can you prove that? Im not saying that teen is right either, but can u back up what you're saying?
See Lucy's Knee Joint: A Case Study in Creationists' Willingness to Admit their Errors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 4:37 PM Mnenth has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 107 of 117 (97276)
04-02-2004 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by teen15m6
04-02-2004 3:18 PM


from what i have just read i am dead on about lucys knee joint, just because the finder didnt put it in writing doesnt mean he didnt admit it, and he wasnt the only one to admit it.
Then you have a severe problem with reading comprehension. From the linked page:
quote:
Creationists have been making the claim that Donald Johanson found the knee joint of "Lucy," a 40%-complete skeleton of the species Australopithecus afarensis, in a location "Sixty to seventy meters lower in the strata and two to three kilometers away" (Willis 1987). They have sometimes gone on to add the claim that "Only under questioning did [Johanson] admit that the knee was found over a mile from Lucy. To the best of our knowledge this admission has not appeared in print!" (Willis 1987; emphasis in original; Also see Brown 1989a, p. 44) The claim is used by creationists to show that (a) evolutionists are dishonest and (b) "Lucy" did not walk upright. It successfully shows neither of these things, because it is false. ... The claim is not only false, it is clearly shown to be false in Johanson's published writings about "Lucy" (e.g., Johanson and Edey 1981, ch. 7-8) and it has been pointed out repeatedly to its proponents that it is false.{emphasis added - JRF}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by teen15m6, posted 04-02-2004 3:18 PM teen15m6 has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 108 of 117 (97278)
04-02-2004 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Mnenth
04-02-2004 3:22 PM


Umm, about Lucy's "knee joint" it wasnt a knee joint they found over a mile away and 3 stratus layers down. Knee joints are cartalidge. It was the bones in the knee, and they proved that Lucy didnt walk upright. Another thing, Lucy's toes and feet were grasping and curled, like an apes, not a humans.
Totally false, as demonstrated at the link I posted already.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 3:22 PM Mnenth has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 109 of 117 (97437)
04-03-2004 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Mnenth
04-02-2004 4:37 PM


Here's Lucy. Which of those bones are "fully human" and don't belong ?
Fossil Hominids: Lucy (AL 288-1)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 4:37 PM Mnenth has not replied

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 110 of 117 (98109)
04-06-2004 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by RAZD
04-02-2004 9:01 AM


Re: Little late for April Fool's Day!
Baugh had not only damaged prints in his attempts to remove them from the surrounding rock, but an article in Evolution/Creation(or is it Creation/Evolution) from the mid-80's talked about how he "modified" the prints.
Granted, a lot of creationists have distanced themselves from Baugh, but you can still see him on TBN on a regular basis!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 04-02-2004 9:01 AM RAZD has not replied

  
moon
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 117 (106867)
05-09-2004 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by teen15m6
04-02-2004 1:28 AM


There are many definations about evolution.
Some biologists say Evolution is the process that brings all life on earth.And evolutionists define it as change in alleles' frequency.What Darwin said was "Descence with modification."
All are true.
To make clear about how evolution occurs, first, it is start with mutation. When our genes(DNA or RNA) replicate, some mistakes occurs, and thus the replicants vary. Remember that even the genes of identical twins are not the exact copies. And there always a struggle for survival. In that struggle, variants with the characters of more reproductive sucess will be favored for survival and unfavored ones will be eliminated. Then the variants which have more reproductive success will become dominant within species.This is what Darwin defined about evolution.
But i think it is(waht i wrote) not as clear as it should be. If u really want to know about it in detil, visit www.evolvingcode.net and enter the classroom. There r lectures about evolution. Or read Darwin's Origin of Species, Dawkins' "Blind watch maker" and "the selfish Gene". they r really cool.

moon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by teen15m6, posted 04-02-2004 1:28 AM teen15m6 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by AdminNosy, posted 05-09-2004 8:16 PM moon has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 112 of 117 (106870)
05-09-2004 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by moon
05-09-2004 8:11 PM


Welcome
Welcome to EvC, moon. Enjoy your visits here.
Please have a read over the forum guidelines and perhaps have a look at:
Message 1
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 05-09-2004 07:21 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by moon, posted 05-09-2004 8:11 PM moon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by moon, posted 05-09-2004 9:33 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
moon
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 117 (106908)
05-09-2004 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by AdminNosy
05-09-2004 8:16 PM


Re: Welcome
Sorry. I'm totally out of topic. I'd just read Teen's first few questions and....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by AdminNosy, posted 05-09-2004 8:16 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by moon, posted 05-09-2004 10:12 PM moon has not replied

  
moon
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 117 (106922)
05-09-2004 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by moon
05-09-2004 9:33 PM


Miller's experiment
I don't know where this topic should go? But i need some help with this topic.
Some creationist say that Miller's experiment is totally a fake! There can be oxygen in the earth environment which will destroy the formation of amino acids. Is there any explanations for that. Could somebody give me the sources to refute their arguement.Or I can use some evidences that RNA and DNA can be / are synthesized in the lab?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by moon, posted 05-09-2004 9:33 PM moon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by NosyNed, posted 05-09-2004 10:16 PM moon has not replied
 Message 116 by coffee_addict, posted 05-09-2004 11:56 PM moon has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 115 of 117 (106926)
05-09-2004 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by moon
05-09-2004 10:12 PM


Re: Miller's experiment
There is a series of posts in a reasonably current thread on this:
Message 1
Or I can use some evidences that RNA and DNA can be / are synthesized in the lab?
I'm no expert but I don't think this has been demonstrated under plasible pre-biotic conditions.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-09-2004 09:17 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by moon, posted 05-09-2004 10:12 PM moon has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 116 of 117 (106945)
05-09-2004 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by moon
05-09-2004 10:12 PM


Re: Miller's experiment
moon writes:
I don't know where this topic should go? But i need some help with this topic.
Some creationist say that Miller's experiment is totally a fake! There can be oxygen in the earth environment which will destroy the formation of amino acids. Is there any explanations for that. Could somebody give me the sources to refute their arguement.Or I can use some evidences that RNA and DNA can be / are synthesized in the lab?
Before the Miller experiment, and after as well, the creationist's main slogan is "life can't come from non-life." The Miller experiment blew that out of the water. There are 2 main reasons why the experiment can't be a fake.
1) It has been repeated thousands of times by thousands of scientists around the world. Unless this is a world wide conspiracy, the experiment ain't fake. You could probably perform this experiment by your self.
2) It hasn't been demonstrated by anyone that the presence of oxygen absolutely prevented the formation of organic molecules from happening.
I am absolutely 100% sure that if God suddenly appear all around the world and told everyone that the Miller experiment was not a fake, you would still find some creationists that would completely ignore the overwhelming evidence and continue to preach their lies.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by moon, posted 05-09-2004 10:12 PM moon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by moon, posted 05-10-2004 10:07 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
moon
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 117 (107274)
05-10-2004 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by coffee_addict
05-09-2004 11:56 PM


Re: Miller's experiment
Get it. Thank a lot.
Nosyned, Thanks u, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by coffee_addict, posted 05-09-2004 11:56 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024