Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Page 8 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 8 Empty Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Ben Reilly on Tue Feb 04, 2014 4:52 am

First topic message reminder :

Just thinking about the comments you sometimes see -- "Scientists once thought the Sun revolves around the Earth." "Scientists once thought we think with our hearts." "Scientists once though leeches could cure you of illnesses."

No, no and no. None of the people who thought those things were scientists in the modern sense of the word; none of them used the scientific method to reach their conclusions.

In fact, most "science" before the mid-1800s was quite haphazard and prone to guessing and overall shoddy work. Leonardo DaVinci was the rare exception before the advent of modern science who put it quite poetically:

"Many think that they can with reason blame me, alleging that my proofs are contrary to the authority of certain men held in great reverence by their inexperienced judgments, not considering that my works are the issue of simple and plain experience which is the true mistress.

These rules enable you to know the true from the false – and this induces men to look only for things that are possible and with due moderation – and they forbid you to use a cloak of ignorance, which will bring about that you attain to no result and despair abandon yourself to melancholy."

I think it would be fair to say that comparing the "scientists" who came before the widespread use of the scientific method to today's scientists would be like comparing witch doctors to modern physicians.

... um, discuss.

_________________
It's so hard to be without you / used to feel so angry, now I only feel humble.

- Ryan Adams
Ben Reilly
Ben Reilly
Cowboy King. Dread Pirate of the Guadalupe. Enemy of the American people.

Posts : 27266
Join date : 2013-01-19
Age : 44
Location : Tesco's

View user profile http://www.newsfixboard.com

Back to top Go down


Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 8 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by stardesk on Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:54 pm

And I, HF, am getting bored by your constant repetition of the same questions which you had answered many times by several of us. Try doing a little bit of research yourself, that way you'll learn about myths, evolution, mutations, etc etc. Don't be afraid, it wont do you any harm, you can still believe in your god, but it'll help you to understand the subjects.

Worship the sun and moon? Oh for pity's sake, take your head out of your glass. At least I don't worship a mythological being.

_________________
Theodosius Dobzhansky: 'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.'
stardesk
stardesk

Posts : 948
Join date : 2013-12-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 8 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Guest on Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:56 pm

stardesk wrote:And I, HF, am getting bored by your constant repetition of the same questions which you had answered many times by several of us. Try doing a little bit of research yourself, that way you'll learn about myths, evolution, mutations, etc etc. Don't be afraid, it wont do you any harm, you can still believe in your god, but it'll help you to understand the subjects.

Worship the sun and moon? Oh for pity's sake, take your head out of your glass. At least I don't worship a mythological being.

so you have no answers as usual we hear the bull about mutations yet no one knows what mutations made any or all of the changes, I don;'t blame you as no one knows them because they don't exist..lol

so which do you worship, the sun, the moon the earth or all three even??

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 8 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Eilzel on Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:58 pm

heavenly father wrote:
stardesk wrote:And I, HF, am getting bored by your constant repetition of the same questions which you had answered many times by several of us. Try doing a little bit of research yourself, that way you'll learn about myths, evolution, mutations, etc etc. Don't be afraid, it wont do you any harm, you can still believe in your god, but it'll help you to understand the subjects.

Worship the sun and moon? Oh for pity's sake, take your head out of your glass. At least I don't worship a mythological being.

so you have no answers as usual we hear the bull about mutations yet no one knows what mutations made any or all of the changes, I don;'t blame you as no one knows them because they don't exist..lol

so which do you worship, the sun, the moon the earth or all three even??

Star and others have been giving you answers for years you just choose not to listen because you fear it may cause you to question your beliefs  Wink 

_________________
"The reactionary is always willing to take a progressive attitude on any issue that is dead" Teddy Roosevelt

"The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms" Socrates
Eilzel
Eilzel
Speaker of the House

Posts : 7905
Join date : 2013-12-12
Age : 34
Location : Lan Na

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 8 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Guest on Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:59 pm

Eilzel wrote:
heavenly father wrote:

so you have no answers as usual we hear the bull about mutations yet no one knows what mutations made any or all of the changes, I don;'t blame you as no one knows them because they don't exist..lol

so which do you worship, the sun, the moon the earth or all three even??

Star and others have been giving you answers for years you just choose not to listen because you fear it may cause you to question your beliefs  Wink 

lol I don't fear at all it makes no sense and never will, still waiting for these mutations that no one seems to have.. Smile 

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 8 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Guest on Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:28 pm

"NASA measurements indicating increased sublimation of the south polar icecap leading to some popular press speculation that Mars was undergoing a parallel bout of global warming."


 scratch 


So, does that mean "global warming" on Mars is also due to Ford Explorers? Or is it just the evil rich white people on Mars?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 8 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Ben Reilly on Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:47 pm

Croissant wrote:"NASA measurements indicating increased sublimation of the south polar icecap leading to some popular press speculation that Mars was undergoing a parallel bout of global warming."


 scratch 


So, does that mean "global warming" on Mars is also due to Ford Explorers? Or is it just the evil rich white people on Mars?

"Global warming on Mars" or any other planet has been measured very poorly, it's not like we have weather stations on other planets, they were done on fly-bys of the planets years apart, often catching a planet during winter the first pass and during summer like a decade later. The whole meme of global warming on other planets is bullshit.

_________________
It's so hard to be without you / used to feel so angry, now I only feel humble.

- Ryan Adams
Ben Reilly
Ben Reilly
Cowboy King. Dread Pirate of the Guadalupe. Enemy of the American people.

Posts : 27266
Join date : 2013-01-19
Age : 44
Location : Tesco's

View user profile http://www.newsfixboard.com

Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 8 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Ben Reilly on Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:47 pm

heavenly father wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
heavenly father wrote:

so you have no answers as usual we hear the bull about mutations yet no one knows what mutations made any or all of the changes, I don;'t blame you as no one knows them because they don't exist..lol

so which do you worship, the sun, the moon the earth or all three even??

Star and others have been giving you answers for years you just choose not to listen because you fear it may cause you to question your beliefs  Wink 

lol I don't fear at all it makes no sense and never will, still waiting for these mutations that no one seems to have.. Smile 

I've already asked you for an example list, since I have no idea what you're talking about, but you keep chickening out of answering the question.

_________________
It's so hard to be without you / used to feel so angry, now I only feel humble.

- Ryan Adams
Ben Reilly
Ben Reilly
Cowboy King. Dread Pirate of the Guadalupe. Enemy of the American people.

Posts : 27266
Join date : 2013-01-19
Age : 44
Location : Tesco's

View user profile http://www.newsfixboard.com

Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 8 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Guest on Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:50 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:

"Global warming on Mars" or any other planet has been measured very poorly, it's not like we have weather stations on other planets, they were done on fly-bys of the planets years apart, often catching a planet during winter the first pass and during summer like a decade later. The whole meme of global warming on other planets is bullshit.


Ah...so the scientists at NASA are practicing bullshit now.  Shocked 

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 8 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Ben Reilly on Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:21 pm

Croissant wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

"Global warming on Mars" or any other planet has been measured very poorly, it's not like we have weather stations on other planets, they were done on fly-bys of the planets years apart, often catching a planet during winter the first pass and during summer like a decade later. The whole meme of global warming on other planets is bullshit.


Ah...so the scientists at NASA are practicing bullshit now.   Shocked 

No, they make no claim of global warming on other planets -- it's the denialist movement that brings Mars into the issue.

_________________
It's so hard to be without you / used to feel so angry, now I only feel humble.

- Ryan Adams
Ben Reilly
Ben Reilly
Cowboy King. Dread Pirate of the Guadalupe. Enemy of the American people.

Posts : 27266
Join date : 2013-01-19
Age : 44
Location : Tesco's

View user profile http://www.newsfixboard.com

Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 8 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by veya_victaous on Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:31 pm

Croissant wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

"Global warming on Mars" or any other planet has been measured very poorly, it's not like we have weather stations on other planets, they were done on fly-bys of the planets years apart, often catching a planet during winter the first pass and during summer like a decade later. The whole meme of global warming on other planets is bullshit.


Ah...so the scientists at NASA are practicing bullshit now.   Shocked 

No un-informed idiots get carried away with Data that have read incorrectly and then print it in a Murdoch paper. Please show a NASA release that says global warming on Mars, In the time frame that it relates to Earths global warming.

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
veya_victaous
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 19095
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 36
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 8 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Guest on Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:18 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:

No, they make no claim of global warming on other planets -- it's the denialist movement that brings Mars into the issue.




Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 8 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Ben Reilly on Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:35 am

Croissant wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

No, they make no claim of global warming on other planets -- it's the denialist movement that brings Mars into the issue.




Awesome, but that's not exactly an authoritative source on global warming, particularly when it comes to other planets.

Here, I'll lead you by the nose:

The planets and moons that are claimed to be warming total roughly eight out of dozens of large bodies in the solar system. Some, like Uranus, may be cooling. All the outer planets have vastly longer orbital periods than Earth, so any climate change on them may be seasonal. Saturn and its moons take 30 Earth years to orbit the Sun, so three decades of observations equates to only 1 Saturnian year. Uranus has an 84-year orbit and 98° axial tilt, so its seasons are extreme. Neptune has not yet completed a single orbit since its discovery in 1846.

This is a round-up of the planets said by sceptics to be experiencing climate change:

Mars: the notion that Mars is warming came from an unfortunate conflation of weather and climate. Based on two pictures taken 22 years apart, assumptions were made that have not proved to be reliable. There is currently no evidence to support claims that Mars is warming at all. More on Mars...
Jupiter: the notion that Jupiter is warming is actually based on predictions, since no warming has actually been observed. Climate models predict temperature increases along the equator and cooling at the poles. It is believed these changes will be catalysed by storms that merge into one super-storm, inhibiting the planet’s ability to mix heat. Sceptical arguments have ignored the fact this is not a phenomenon we have observed, and that the modelled forcing is storm and dust movements, not changes in solar radiation.
Neptune: observations of changes in luminosity on the surface of both Neptune and its largest moon, Triton, have been taken to indicate warming caused by increased solar activity. In fact, the brightening is due to the planet’s seasons changing, but very slowly. Summer is coming to Neptune’s southern hemisphere, bringing more sunlight, as it does every 164 years.
Pluto: the warming exhibited by Pluto is not really understood. Pluto’s seasons are the least understood of all: its existence has only been known for a third of its 248 -year orbit, and it has never been visited by a space probe. The ‘evidence’ for climate change consists of just two observations made in 1988 and 2002. That’s equivalent to observing the Earth’s weather for just three weeks out of the year. Various theories suggest its highly elliptical orbit may play a part, as could the large angle of its rotational axis. One recent paper suggests the length of Pluto’s orbit is a key factor, as with Neptune. Sunlight at Pluto is 900 times weaker than it is at the Earth.
Claims that solar system bodies are heating up due to increased solar activity are clearly wrong. The sun’s output has declined in recent decades. Only Pluto and Neptune are exhibiting increased brightness. Heating attributed to other solar bodies remains unproven.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm

_________________
It's so hard to be without you / used to feel so angry, now I only feel humble.

- Ryan Adams
Ben Reilly
Ben Reilly
Cowboy King. Dread Pirate of the Guadalupe. Enemy of the American people.

Posts : 27266
Join date : 2013-01-19
Age : 44
Location : Tesco's

View user profile http://www.newsfixboard.com

Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 8 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Guest on Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:37 am

Nice piece but I still doubt anything where mankind is concerned and climate change is one of them. Human beings are corrupt - even the saintly ones, who are just better at it.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 8 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Ben Reilly on Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:11 am

Croissant wrote:Nice piece but I still doubt anything where mankind is concerned and climate change is one of them.  Human beings are corrupt - even the saintly ones, who are just better at it.

OK, let's explore that Smile

Why would people be any more corrupt about the issue of climate change? And how could the self-correcting scientific community miss so badly on something as big as this?

Bearing in mind that no scientist is a policymaker or can do anything alone about climate change; scientists aren't sitting there poised to raise taxes or create credits for green energy; you really do have to posit that an awful lot of people are in cahoots to make that work. And I don't believe that large groups of people can conceal conspiracies  ::D:: 

_________________
It's so hard to be without you / used to feel so angry, now I only feel humble.

- Ryan Adams
Ben Reilly
Ben Reilly
Cowboy King. Dread Pirate of the Guadalupe. Enemy of the American people.

Posts : 27266
Join date : 2013-01-19
Age : 44
Location : Tesco's

View user profile http://www.newsfixboard.com

Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 8 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by stardesk on Sat Mar 08, 2014 11:35 am

Once more into battle: HF, concerning positive mutations:

Evolution of New Metabolic Pathways

Graham Bell's book ("Selection - The Mechanism of Evolution" Alexander Bell, 1997) describes experiments that have demonstrated that organisms are capable of evolving whole new metabolic pathways, not just improving existing pathways. This is important to me because it shows that evolution is capable of producing something new, not just making minor improvements to existing pathways.
The most common experimental process that leads to evolution of a new pathway is this. An organism (usually bacteria) is put in a novel environment - an environment that contains some resource (chemical) that the organism has not been exposed to in the past. If that new chemical is the sole source of some chemical the organism requires for survival (e.g. carbon or nitrogen), most of the time, the organism will die. However, if any of the organisms' existing enzymes have the slightest ability to enhance reactions with the new resource, selection will strongly favor the duplication of the gene that produces that enzyme, and future mutations will improve the ability of the newly duplicated enzyme to process the new chemical resource. It's not very hard to see that the same factors that are manipulated in these experiments are going to occur in nature as well in the very long term. This duplication and divergence strategy of evolution appears to be capable of driving evolution from the first pre biotic self-replicators to the present incredibly complex and diverse life forms that occupy every imaginable niche of the planet earth.

stardesk
stardesk

Posts : 948
Join date : 2013-12-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 8 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by stardesk on Mon Mar 10, 2014 9:06 pm

Oh dear, 2 days later and neither HF, Maine, nor Guest, have replied to my post above about positive mutations. I wonder why? Have we finally got it into your heads that evolution is/was a fact?

_________________
Theodosius Dobzhansky: 'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.'
stardesk
stardesk

Posts : 948
Join date : 2013-12-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 8 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by stardesk on Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:11 pm

5 days later and still no answer from our Creation friends. I wonder why.

_________________
Theodosius Dobzhansky: 'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.'
stardesk
stardesk

Posts : 948
Join date : 2013-12-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 8 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Guest on Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:46 pm

stardesk wrote:Once more into battle: HF, concerning positive mutations:

Evolution of New Metabolic Pathways

Graham Bell's book ("Selection - The Mechanism of Evolution" Alexander Bell, 1997) describes experiments that have demonstrated that organisms are capable of evolving whole new metabolic pathways, not just improving existing pathways. This is important to me because it shows that evolution is capable of producing something new, not just making minor improvements to existing pathways.
The most common experimental process that leads to evolution of a new pathway is this. An organism (usually bacteria) is put in a novel environment - an environment that contains some resource (chemical) that the organism has not been exposed to in the past. If that new chemical is the sole source of some chemical the organism requires for survival (e.g. carbon or nitrogen), most of the time, the organism will die. However, if any of the organisms' existing enzymes have the slightest ability to enhance reactions with the new resource, selection will strongly favor the duplication of the gene that produces that enzyme, and future mutations will improve the ability of the newly duplicated enzyme to process the new chemical resource. It's not very hard to see that the same factors that are manipulated in these experiments are going to occur in nature as well in the very long term. This duplication and divergence strategy of evolution appears to be capable of driving evolution from the first pre biotic self-replicators to the present incredibly complex and diverse life forms that occupy every imaginable niche of the planet earth.


still within the parameters of a set species, it is nothing new and does not add just more bull...

did you find out about the colour of the eyes of our ancestral apes... Smile 

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 8 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by stardesk on Thu Mar 13, 2014 9:20 pm

Hi Lone Wolf. He should go and see his doctor as soon as possible. I suspect the poor man has the onset of compulsive repetition syndrome. He'll finish up sitting in a corner in a mental institution, rocking back and forth and repeating the same sentance over and over, 24/7
---------------------------------------------------------

Hi HF, I see Dibley has joined. This is going to be fun.

You keep asking about the colour of ancestral and animal eyes. The majority of eyes were and are brown. Fossil evidence doesn't exist due to the rotting of flesh. But, and as it's not in my field of studies, here's what I've found by researching:

The results of this current research project have been published this week in an article entitled "Direct evidence for positive selection of skin, hair, and eye pigmentation in Europeans during the last 5,000 years" in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
While investigating numerous genetic markers in archaeological and living individuals, Sandra Wilde of the Palaeogenetics Group at the JGU Institute of Anthropology noticed striking differences in genes associated with hair, skin, and eye pigmentation. "Prehistoric Europeans in the region we studied would have been consistently darker than their descendants today," says Wilde, first author of the PNAS article. "This is particularly interesting as the darker phenotype seems to have been preferred by evolution over hundreds of thousands of years. All our early ancestors were more darkly pigmented." However, things must have changed in the last 50,000 years as humans began to migrate to northern latitudes.

stardesk
stardesk

Posts : 948
Join date : 2013-12-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 8 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by stardesk on Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:02 am

5 days later and no contradictory repetitions? Hopefully our Creationist opponents have finally got the message, that evolution was a fact, not a theory or fanciful thinking.

_________________
Theodosius Dobzhansky: 'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.'
stardesk
stardesk

Posts : 948
Join date : 2013-12-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 8 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Guest on Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:35 am

stardesk wrote:Hi Lone Wolf. He should go and see his doctor as soon as possible. I suspect the poor man has the onset of compulsive repetition syndrome. He'll finish up sitting in a corner in a mental institution, rocking back and forth and repeating the same sentance over and over, 24/7
---------------------------------------------------------

Hi HF, I see Dibley has joined. This is going to be fun.

You keep asking about the colour of ancestral and animal eyes. The majority of eyes were and are brown. Fossil evidence doesn't exist due to the rotting of flesh. But, and as it's not in my field of studies, here's what I've found by researching:

The results of this current research project have been published this week in an article entitled "Direct evidence for positive selection of skin, hair, and eye pigmentation in Europeans during the last 5,000 years" in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
While investigating numerous genetic markers in archaeological and living individuals, Sandra Wilde of the Palaeogenetics Group at the JGU Institute of Anthropology noticed striking differences in genes associated with hair, skin, and eye pigmentation. "Prehistoric Europeans in the region we studied would have been consistently darker than their descendants today," says Wilde, first author of the PNAS article. "This is particularly interesting as the darker phenotype seems to have been preferred by evolution over hundreds of thousands of years. All our early ancestors were more darkly pigmented." However, things must have changed in the last 50,000 years as humans began to migrate to northern latitudes.


do you have a link to it as it mentions eye pigmentation, but does not go in to anything but darker skin...

so pretty useless rebuttal really.... Smile 

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 8 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Ben Reilly on Sun Mar 23, 2014 4:31 am

Here's the link, GIG:

http://www.uni-mainz.de/presse/17148_ENG_HTML.php

Why are you so obsessed with whether the eye color of ancient hominids is known to science? Surely to you that would be a feature of "microevolution" rather than the macro kind that is being discussed here.

Meanwhile, here's another link, one which I'm pretty sure I've given you before, of the various evidence of "transitional fossils" (as I've explained before, "transitional" is a misnomer because all species, whether individuals within them became fossilized or not, are evolving or evolved before extinction, and are thus "transitional"):

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

Why don't you puzzle over that for a while and try to grasp some of it, and then come back to us with your thoughts? And in the process become an intellectually honest debater on this topic?

Better yet, why don't you at least try to understand the tenets of evolutionary theory before weighing in on a debate about it?

(What would you think of someone who jumped into a debate about Christian ideas on salvation without understanding the ideas in the first place?)

_________________
It's so hard to be without you / used to feel so angry, now I only feel humble.

- Ryan Adams
Ben Reilly
Ben Reilly
Cowboy King. Dread Pirate of the Guadalupe. Enemy of the American people.

Posts : 27266
Join date : 2013-01-19
Age : 44
Location : Tesco's

View user profile http://www.newsfixboard.com

Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 8 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Guest on Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:15 pm

there are no where near enough transitional fossils to show change in evolution, that is why punctuated equilibrium was invented..

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 8 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Ben Reilly on Sun Mar 23, 2014 4:27 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:there are no where near enough transitional fossils to show change in evolution, that is why punctuated equilibrium was invented..

And there will never be enough transitional fossils to demonstrate any kind of smooth linear narrative -- it's a very rare thing for an organism to be preserved as a fossil.

Thankfully, molecular study of genes is a far more reliable way to study evolution and tells us way more about it than an old rock ever could.

_________________
It's so hard to be without you / used to feel so angry, now I only feel humble.

- Ryan Adams
Ben Reilly
Ben Reilly
Cowboy King. Dread Pirate of the Guadalupe. Enemy of the American people.

Posts : 27266
Join date : 2013-01-19
Age : 44
Location : Tesco's

View user profile http://www.newsfixboard.com

Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 8 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Guest on Sun Mar 23, 2014 5:55 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:there are no where near enough transitional fossils to show change in evolution, that is why punctuated equilibrium was invented..

And there will never be enough transitional fossils to demonstrate any kind of smooth linear narrative -- it's a very rare thing for an organism to be preserved as a fossil.

Thankfully, molecular study of genes is a far more reliable way to study evolution and tells us way more about it than an old rock ever could.

so transitional fossils failed and now another story takes up its position.. Smile 

and is this molecular study available to the average follower of the religion of evolution or is it something else you are relying on another man to tell you what to believe.. Smile 

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 8 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Ben Reilly on Sun Mar 23, 2014 5:56 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:there are no where near enough transitional fossils to show change in evolution, that is why punctuated equilibrium was invented..

And there will never be enough transitional fossils to demonstrate any kind of smooth linear narrative -- it's a very rare thing for an organism to be preserved as a fossil.

Thankfully, molecular study of genes is a far more reliable way to study evolution and tells us way more about it than an old rock ever could.

so transitional fossils failed and now another story takes up its position.. Smile 

and is this molecular study available to the average follower of the religion of evolution or is it something else you are relying on another man to tell you what to believe.. Smile 

No, they didn't fail, they just can't on their own paint a complete picture. Molecular biology has filled in the gaps. But there are plenty of suggestive transitional fossils -- did you check the link?

_________________
It's so hard to be without you / used to feel so angry, now I only feel humble.

- Ryan Adams
Ben Reilly
Ben Reilly
Cowboy King. Dread Pirate of the Guadalupe. Enemy of the American people.

Posts : 27266
Join date : 2013-01-19
Age : 44
Location : Tesco's

View user profile http://www.newsfixboard.com

Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 8 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Guest on Sun Mar 23, 2014 5:58 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

so transitional fossils failed and now another story takes up its position.. Smile 

and is this molecular study available to the average follower of the religion of evolution or is it something else you are relying on another man to tell you what to believe.. Smile 

No, they didn't fail, they just can't on their own paint a complete picture. Molecular biology has filled in the gaps. But there are plenty of suggestive transitional fossils -- did you check the link?

molecular biologists have filled the gaps, are they like mini gods in your religion then... Smile 

so these molecular biologists now tell you what to think... Smile 

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 8 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum