If you want an example of baffled evolutionists,
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Inherit the Wind
Roquefort — 15 years ago(July 06, 2010 08:24 PM)
If you want an example of baffled evolutionists,
(1) First they told us that;"Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans likely did not interbreed, according to a new DNA study. "
This was based on mitochondrial DNA.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080812-neandertal-dna.html
(2) Now they tell us: "Current (as of 2010) genetic evidence suggests interbreeding took place with Homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern humans) between roughly 80,000 to 50,000 years ago in the Middle East, resulting in indigenous sub-Saharan Africans having no Neanderthal DNA, and Caucasians and Asians having between 1% and 4% Neanderthal DNA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
The hole in this theory is that Eurasian humans do not have any evidence of Neanderthal mtDNA.
The evidence therefore is that Neanderthals were the product of human males with Eurasian DNA mating with non-human females, probably Heidelberg or homo-whatever. Humans have no ancestor species. The hominids were ape/human hybrids. -
Rangely8723 — 15 years ago(July 10, 2010 02:32 AM)
(1) Can you explain how this would disprove the theory of evolution, or how it contradicts the mechanisms of evolution?
(2) Who are those 'baffled evolutionists'? First of all, 'Evolutionists' don't exist in science, like there are no 'Gravitationists' or 'Atomists'. And yes, it happens that scientists are sometimes baffled by new research results, and science barely leads to a 100% concensus. Here a few examples of 'baffled' physicists:
First, 'they' told us that atoms look like a plum pudding (Thomson), then 'they' told us that they look like little planetary systems (Rutherford, Bohr), and nowadays 'they' tell us atoms don't consist of little beads, but of quanta described by a wave function (atomic orbital). According to creationist logic, this is proof enough that atoms don't exist at all.
You think gravitation is a fact? You shouldn't, regarding all the baffling theories and hypotheses about it. There is Einstein's general relativity which explains gravitation. But there are many more valid theories: The TeVeS (Bekenstein's Tensor-vector-scalar gravity), the Brans-Dicke theory, the MOND theory, the quantum field (Induced gravity) theory, Bekenstein and Hawking's 'Entropic Force' hypothesis, and many more. Quite baffling, isn't it? And - to baffle you even more - Newton's theory (which many people call a fact) isn't even among those theories since it's obsolete for more than 100 years (though the gravitation laws found by Newton are of course still valid for non-relativistic physics).
Et moi, je lui ferai porter la sienne comme Saint Denis -
Roquefort — 15 years ago(July 16, 2010 08:53 PM)
(2) "Baffled evolutionists" would be anypone who believes both:
(A) Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans likely did not interbreed
and
(B) interbreeding took place
(1) [how it contradicts the mechanisms of evolution?]
If the only allowable possibilities, according to evolution are:
(A) Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans likely did not interbreed
and
(B) interbreeding took place
Then the unthinkable possibilty is that
(C) Neanderthals are the product of hybridization.
Such a line of reasoning would unravel the theory of hominid evolution and the fossil dating system. -
heathenangel — 15 years ago(August 22, 2010 10:33 AM)
And really, isn't that the GREAT thing about science? When new information comes in, theories can be reworked so that the new information is included. Science isn't based on belief it is based on evidence, unlike religion and mythology which one must have BLIND FAITH OF A CHILD (religionists words, not mine), which translates to ignorance and willful ignorance. In order to believe that an invisible superman lives in the sky, and cares who you marry, where you put your genitals, what you eat, watch, listen to, wear one has to suspend logic and have BLIND FAITH OF A CHILD.
I'll take the scientific evidence, the MOUNTAINS of it that evolution has to back it up. It certainly beats thinking that there's a little faerie living in my refrigerator turning the light on for me when I open the door. -
seilerbird — 11 years ago(November 23, 2014 06:49 PM)
I find it amazing that anyone can seriously question evolution. Look at your parents, look at your children. Do they look anything at all like you? If the answer is true you have just proven that evolution is a fact, not a theory.
-
Roquefort — 10 years ago(November 21, 2015 02:30 PM)
A good video on the history of the real trial is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvz7vyGsQv0