9 Unscientific Excuses to Ignore Evolution.

[KichigaiNeko]

I'm not disagreeing with you Tonus.

---

Apologies Metazoa

[Duke Guilmon]

You guys don't have to apologize. I really do this for my own benefit, but I do like to think that somebody uses these arguments in order to stop stupidity.

(That and I hate it when we just say you are an idiot without showing them why they are idiots.)

[Rampant.A.I.]

I'm reading. Usually you can get through to someone already aware of the "macro vs. micro" so-called "debate" by pointing out it's an artificial distinction, but for the Crocoduck seekers, this is the type of refutation you'd need.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Perhaps I should be clearer.

It isn't biological evolution I find boring, or Metazoa Zeke's writing. I've just read (and written) so many refutations of creationism that the whole topic has become dull beyond belief. The seventeenth time you try to tell someone the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law, it starts to get a bit same-y.

You're fighting the good fight, Metazoa, and I applaud you for it. But to paraphrase Douglas Adams, trying to explain science to a creationist is like try to do trigonometry while someone's kicking your head.

Boru

[Duke Guilmon]

Perhaps I should be clearer.

It isn't biological evolution I find boring, or Metazoa Zeke's writing. I've just read (and written) so many refutations of creationism that the whole topic has become dull beyond belief. The seventeenth time you try to tell someone the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law, it starts to get a bit same-y.

You're fighting the good fight, Metazoa, and I applaud you for it. But to paraphrase Douglas Adams, trying to explain science to a creationist is like try to do trigonometry while someone's kicking your head.

Boru

I understand where you are coming from, and thank you for the complement.

[Duke Guilmon]

Part 4: Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong

"The body and soul of Darwin's Theory of Evolution was the idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations."

Well the theory of evolution is passed Darwin. Natural selection is not weather something is bigger,faster,or stronger, but instead who can survive. Many slow weak animals have in fact out survived fast strong animals. Just had to address this.

"Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates between the old species and the new."

Adaptations are adaptations that evolve. An intermediate is an animal or fossil that connects ancestors and descendants. Though the fossils have adaptations, adaptations them selves are not intermediate links.

"The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the "evolutionary tree" have many flaws."

Well those with "flaws" can only be argued for extinct animals, and even then they only died out when the environment changed and they could not adapt, not so much that they were completely flawed. Deer them selves may be fast and quick but they are not so smart. There is a reason they have the expression "Like a deer in headlights."

"One of the best examples of evolution nonsense is the thought that a wingless bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable to his environment. The first wing stubs would be much too small for the bird to fly."


Well this is a sign of their ignorance is it? First off is to know what birds evolved from. Birds are really a extant group of theropods. Some theropods with small arms are the tyrannosaurs and carnotaurus may have had useless arms. Birds on the other hand share a common ancestor with dromeosaurs, which are raptors.



Now what am I getting at with this? Well the ancestors of the birds would have not had no small arms. Instead it would have feathers that are downy. If you want an example take a look at the fossil Juravenator.






"Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment."

Well the bird wing did not start off as a stub, but as a normal arm. The evolution of flight is a complex matter. In short feathers evolved from structures that formed to keep warm. Eventually as feathers began to evolve in dinosaurs, animals like Archaeopteryx could not fly, but they could glide thanks to the adaptations that have accumulated in feathers. Then after this gliding became more advanced in aves, and eventually adaptations like strong flight muscles and hollow bones evolved to give birds the power of flight.

To add half a wing does have a use. In fact many other dinosaurs also had wings. Oviraptor itself had wings, however it did not use them to fly. The wings were used to keep their eggs warm.

http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/spec...aptor.html

See a wing not complete used for flight can still have a use.

"We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing, so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed."

Well this is also not true. If we teach the evolution of birds we explain to them how flight might have evolved. None of those lessons teach that birds evolved from animals that had useless wing stubs, but that feathers evolved on certain theropod dinosaurs were pressured by environmental changes. The dinosaurs the evolved from had arms that were pretty long.

"Evolutionists say birds grew hollow bones for less weight in order to fly. How would a bird pass this long-term plan to the millions of generations in order to keep the lighter bone plan progressing? The evolutionary concept of growing a wing over millions of generations violates the very foundation of evolution: the natural selection."

Well they would pass it on through natural selection. It was not a plan for birds to fly. However primitive birds that were able to glide longer ended up surviving longer and being able to mate. Those traits that made birds lighter were able to be passed on.

Oh does it violate evolution, because we have an answer they don't want to hear.

"Birds aren't the only species that proves the theory of natural selection to be wrong. The problem can be found in all species in one way or another. Take fish for example."

Fish? I thought we were to only stick with birds? Seems like there wasn't much of an argument.

"We are told by evolutionists that a fish wiggled out of the sea onto dry land and became a land creature. So let's examine this idea. OK, a fish wiggles out of the sea and onto the land, but he can't breathe air. This could happen. Fish do stupid things at times. Whales keep swimming up onto the beach where they die. Do you think the whales are trying to expedite a multi-million generation plan to grow legs? That concept is stupid, but let's get back to the fish story."

Well that is the biggest straw man I have ever heard. Stuff like this is why I hate layman explanations, they are much easier to twist without them looking stupid on notice. First let us look at transitional fossils for lobe-fined fish to tetrapod evolution. Some like icthyostega can show what I mean. This fossil was obviously able to move on land due to its limb structure. However this animal also had a operculum, the bony cover of a bony fishes gill.

http://bio.sunyorange.edu/updated2/pl%20...EV_364.htm

If you are going to use a straw man , of course it will be stupid. A straw man is used to make fun of the opposition while not addressing the actual argument.

"The gills of the fish are made for extracting oxygen from water, not from air. He chokes and gasps before flipping back into the safety of the water. Why would he do such a stupid thing? This wiggling and choking continues for millions of generation until the fish chokes less and less. His gills evolve into lungs so he can breathe air on dry land, but now he is at risk of drowning in the water."

Again the first argument they made is a straw man. The fish that eventually evolved into tetrapods eventually were able to breath oxygen over time, not they ran on land then ran back in water. Fish today can take air from the surface then use it to breath under water when oxygen is low. The water around tiktaalik's time had poor oxygen so being able to use air to breath was a benefit.


"One day he simply stays out on the land and never goes back into the water. Now he is a lizard."

Nothing but straw men. First it is not lizards it is amniotes. Second tetrapods also include amphibians. To add some tetrapods have gone back to the water some actually live their whole lives in water(i.e the mudpuppy)

http://www.ontarionature.org/protect/spe...dpuppy.php

"Giant dinosaurs literally exploded onto the scene during the Triassic period. The fossil record (petrified bones found in the ground as at the Dinosaur National Park in Jensen, Utah, USA) shows no intermediate or transitional species. Where are the millions of years of fossils showing the transitional forms for dinosaurs? They do not not exist, because the dinosaurs did not evolve."

What now dinosaurs? Well at least they didn't stray to far from the title seeing as birds are dinosaurs.

And for those dinosaur transitional fossils there are some, one just needs to look for it. Asilisaurus, Marasuchus, and Proterosuchus are good examples.

So using those we can show the evolution of our dinosaurs. Again a simple search of sources would help them.

http://www.reptileevolution.com/proterosuchus.htm

http://www.reptileevolution.com/marasuchus.htm

http://www.palaeocritti.com/by-group/din...silisaurus

"Books published by evolutionists have shown the giant Cetiosaurus dinosaur with the long neck extending upright eating from the treetops. They claimed natural selection was the reason Cetiosaurus had a long neck. This gave them an advantage in reaching fodder that other species could not reach."

This is true, Cetiosaurus was tall so that it could reach the food it needed to eat. This make sense. But why do I have a feeling that this is going to go wrong. Wait did they say neck extending upright?

"One day during the assembly of a skeleton for a museum display someone noticed the neck vertebrae were such that the neck could not be lifted higher than stretched horizontally in front of them. The natural selection theory was proven to be a big lie. The Cetiosaurus dinosaur was an undergrowth eater. The long neck actually placed the Cetiosaurus at a disadvantage in his environment, just the opposite from the natural Theory of Natural Selection."

Oh, how bad do you have to be to get this wrong. I actually looked up artist renderings of Cetiosaurus eating, here are the results:





Both are seen trying to stand to reach high plants, not their neck moving up. It looks like its neck was made to eat out of tall trees.

Also Cetiosaurus had a neck not good for eating ground plants, so eating low is not an option.

"Evolutionists will now claim the animal evolved a long neck because he had the advantage of eating from bushes on the other side of the river. This is typical logic of an evolutionist."

Well I already addressed this, seeing as Cetiosaurus ate trees that where close to it.

The "logic" they gave us is not even our thoughts. It is nothing more than a straw man. If anything they are arguing against this



This is the end of part four. Part five tomorrow.

Thanks for reading. Here is your gecko.

[KichigaiNeko]

Thank you

[Duke Guilmon]

Part 5 A:Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Prove Evolution Theory is Wrong

"The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic, and scientific proof."

How so? First you can never prove anything in science. Second there is no one proof. There are many fossils, of many species, and many animals, of many species that give us insight on evolution.

"Evolutionists line up pictures of similar-looking species and claim they evolved one from another. The human "family tree" is an example of this flawed theory. Petrified skulls and bones exist from hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes."

The line up of pictures is to explain transitional fossils. For example when we line up the evolution of cetaceans like this diagram here:



It is to make sense of the theory at hand.

When you bring up the human family tree you are forgetting many factors. For example their are many fossil monkeys but aegyptopithecus stand out from the rest. The reason is because it has characteristics of both old world monkeys and apes. Let us list them:

Ape traits:

Ape-like teeth including broad, flat incisors and sexually dimorphic canines

A low sagittal keel and strong temporalis muscles

Increased size in the visual cortex

Monkey traits:

Retained auditory features similar to Old world monkeys

Incapable of true brachiation unlike extant apes

Reduced capitular tail

This animal also appeared. 33mya. The oldest ape did not appear until 27mya.

So in turn not only does it appear before apes with traits of both, it existed before the first ape evolved. So out of the monkey fossils this seems to fit the tree better than the rest.

"Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture."

Make believe? No, ignoring them won't make the fossils go away.



"Why do they claim the above discovery is "close to the missing link"? The answer is simple. Look at the picture: It is a monkey. A monkey species that has become extinct. Lots of species have become extinct. Millions of species have become extinct."

As I said before, it takes more than it just being a fossil to make it truly transitional.

The fossil in question is called Ardipithecus ramidus. Now, why in the world would this be a transitional fossil? What evidence do scientist have that this animal is a transitional fossil? Well lets take a look at the article they gave and see what they said:

"Ardi is closer to humans than chimps. Measuring in at 47 in. (120 cm) tall and 110 lb. (50 kg), Ardi likely walked with a strange gait, lurching side to side, due to lack of an arch in its feet, a feature of later hominids. It had somewhat monkey-like feet, with opposable toes, but its feet were not flexible enough to grab onto vines or tree trunks like many monkeys -- rather they were good enough to provide extra support during quick walks along tree branches -- called palm walking."

The article gives the reasons why it is a transitional fossil. So they are in fact justified in saying that it is one.

http://www.dailytech.com/Close+to+the+Mi...e16403.htm

"It is obviously not similar to a human. Look at the feet with the big toe spread away from the smaller toes exactly like a modern chimpanzee, not like people."

However, as I recently showed the human traits in the quotes from the article above.

"A newly discovered extinct species does not prove a "missing link" has been found."

Well if it fits this definition it does:

"Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time."

"Charles Darwin admitted that fossils of the transitional links between species would have to be found in order to prove his "Theory of Evolution." Well, these transitional links have never been found. We only find individual species."

Good thing we have found them. Like icthyostega.

"Evolutionists try to form these individual species into a link according to similar major features such as wings or four legs, but this simply proves the Theory of Evolution to be a fraud. Darwin was hopeful that future fossils would prove his theory correct, but instead, the lack of transitional links has proven his theory to be wrong."

How so? You can't say it make it flawed and give no reason. In fact what are we supposed to do? If we find an animal like tiktaalik and see it have traits of both tetrapods and fish and existed after primitive lobe fined fish and live with no tetrapods, but we are not allowed to show that these give a connection to evolution because it makes it flawed? You might as well say not use math in physics.

"The presence of individual species actually proves they were not developed by an evolutionary process. If evolution were true, all plants, animals, and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical, because they would not be separate species. All life forms would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species. Everything would be changing, and every animal, insect, and plant would be different."

So fossils disprove evolution? How? Because of there not being a gap in each date of rock we find in an animals evolution?

As before their are fossils showing change in fact cetacians have the most complete one.



All life forms are not a mix because of natural selection. This characteristic argument they are making is no different than asking for a crocoduck.

The cheetah above proves evolution does not exist. All species are locked solidly within their DNA code.

Population bottlenecks again? Population bottlenecks can be recovered from, if you don't believe me, ask the canine.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info...en.1004016

Part A complete, here is your gecko.

[Ryantology]

I appreciate the gist of what you're doing, but that kind of bullshit doesn't deserve the response you're giving it.

It takes one click to the main page and ten seconds reading it to understand that the entire site is Alex Jones-type shit and completely devoid of intellectual integrity.