Stupid Creationist!

[genderhazard]

Originally Posted by Rachel Bronwyn

I’ve no idea who this mitochondrial Eve is. You’ll have to expand on this notion prior to my responding. As of right now, I don’t know if mitochondrial Eve exists or if her offspring exist through her descendants or if her contemporaries exist.



Do your own homework.

Rachael I'm disappointed in you.

I have already provided basic information on who mitochondrial Eve is. You want me to expand upon Eve, yet you send me to just fucking google it.com telling me to Do my own homework.

And that’s because it can’t be observed. The scientific method will never allow for evolution to become fact or “law”, not because of missing evidence, but because of the simple fact it’s an extremely extensive process that cannot be viewed. Evolution of a species takes a fucking long time. Watching a land mammal become aquatic is not possible. It is possible, however, to find extensive evidence of this process, hence the legitimacy of evolution.

And I asked you to show me this extensive evidence. If it is extensive then this should not be hard for you. (and it will take more than the size and shape of beaks.)

No, no, no, no., no, no, no, no, no, no. The things people who think they understand evolution know are completely wrong.

Well they're the experts saying this (Lovejoy was one of more than 40 researchers from around the world who analyzed the Ardi fossils. )


The analysis of Ardipithecus ramidus (it means "root of the ground ape"), reported in the journal Science, changes the notion that humans and chimps, our closest genetic cousins, both trace their lineage to a creature that was more like today's chimp. Rather, the research suggests that their common ancestor was a walking forest forager more cooperative in nature than the competitive, aggressive chimp and that chimps were an evolutionary offshoot of this creature.

So that could mean that while humans didn't diverge much from their evolutionary ancestors, "chimps and gorillas look like really special evolutionary outcomes," says Science study author Owen Lovejoy of Ohio's Kent State University.

You’ll note this discovery has not shaken the evolutionary theory at all as it leaves plenty of room for what Ardi teaches us to occur.

"We're going to have to rewrite the textbooks on human origins," Lovejoy says.

As their environments change, species adapt to them via natural selection. As desirable genetic mutations are perpetuated via natural selection, species change.

Natural selection and adaptation, do not mean that intellegent design is negated.

Did you think the chimpanzee was immune to evolution? That we evolved from modern day chimps? Of course not. Chimpanzees have evolved alongside us. We didn't evolve from them anymore than they evolved from us. Our common ancestor simply evolved in very different directions. Sharing a common ancestor, however, does not equate to evolving from a particular species.

"Six months ago, we would have said our common ancestor looked something like a chimp," said Tim White of the University of California at Berkeley, a senior researcher on the project. "Now all that has changed."

Although chimpanzees remain our closest living primate relatives, there is now no evidence that Homo sapiens somehow evolved from chimpanzee-like individuals, losing chimp characteristics over time.

So when you go from head to toe, you're seeing a mosaic creature that is neither chimpanzee, nor is it human. It is Ardipithecus,' said Dr White.

I fail to see how she’s “just” anything. She’s a member of the family.

It is simply a fossil of an Ardipithecus.

The team's reconstruction of the 4-foot-tall skeleton and of Ardi's environment — Ardi was found in alongside crumbling fossils of 29 species of birds and 20 species of small mammals - a woodland replete with owls, parrots, shrews, bats, mice, monkeys, bears, rhinos, antelope
everything from fig trees and snails to elephants and porcupines.

Yes, and there’s no reason to presume Ardi’s ancestors hadn’t evolved extensively and were completely different from she.

Here's the thing those 29 species of birds and 20 species of small mammals were still owls, parrots, shrews, bats, mice, monkeys, bears, rhinos, antelope everything from fig trees and snails to elephants and porcupines.

The fact remains, we share a common ancestor.

This is not fact this is conjecture.

Why wouldn’t they have? Evolution is fluid, not static. That makes perfect evolutionary sense.

It’s possible but the same can be said for all other no longer existing animals for which we have fossils. The idea all these creatures died off as opposed to evolved from their previous forms is creationist and entirely non-sensical as it doesn’t begin to take the fossil record into account.

Non-sensical?

Extinction is the end of an organism or group of taxa.

Extinction, though, is usually a natural phenomenon; it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct.

It is statistally more likely that Ardipithecus is another animal in the long line of extict creatures.

Between 1500 and 2006 CE, 784 extinctions have been documented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. However, since most extinctions go undocumented, scientists estimate that during the 20th century, between 20,000 and two million species actually became extinct.

Ardi fits into our family tree beautifully,

Not really.

the older A. kadabba is "known only from teeth and bits and pieces of skeletal bones", and is dated to approximately 5.6 million years ago. It has been described as a "probable chronospecies" (i.e. ancestor) of A. ramidus. Although originally considered a subspecies of A. ramidus, in 2004 anthropologists Yohannes Haile-Selassie, Gen Suwa, and Tim D. White published an article elevating A. kadabba to species level on the basis of newly-discovered teeth from Ethiopia. These teeth show "primitive morphology and wear pattern" which demonstrate that A. kadabba is a distinct species from A. ramidus.

between CLCA and Australopithecus. That’s why the primary conclusion scientists are coming to is chimp ancestry goes back further than we’d predicted. Thank you, new findings!

"We screwed up so we need more time". Sure the evidence proved what we held true about the ”chimpanzee last common ancestor,” six months ago was complete hogwash. But we're sure gawd... Um I mean CLCA exists.

Chimpanzees are looking more and more irrelevant to interpreting early hominins. - John Hawks paleoanthropologist.

[qzar9999]

genderhazard--

You're much better at this than I was. Huzzah! I salute you.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

Originally Posted by genderhazard

Rachael I'm disappointed in you.

I.... don?t care?

I have already provided basic information on who mitochondrial Eve is. You want me to expand upon Eve, yet you send me to just fucking google it.com telling me to Do my own homework.

When you ask a favour of me such as an answer to a question it?s your responsibility to provide me with satisfactory explanation, not mine. I?m the one doing the favour. You?re the one benefitting. Hence, you need to step up, not I. I?m not going out of my way to answer a question for someone who can?t be arsed to explain themselves.

By suggesting you google an answer to a stupid question you posed earlier, I provided you with a means by which to find the answer as opposed to wasting my time. Use the suggestion.

And I asked you to show me this extensive evidence. If it is extensive then this should not be hard for you. (and it will take more than the size and shape of beaks.)

The mere fact you?re behaving in this manner suggests you don?t believe I?m capable of providing this information and will refute what I do provide (which is readily available and extensive, by the way.) I?ve dealt with many idiots in my life. Why spend time on another?

The evidence is readily available to you as is the scientific method; something you?ve yet to incorporate. If you give a shit, by these means you will find that answer. There is only one right answer in this case.

This is not fact this is conjecture.

So you either don?t know the meaning of conjecture or what the scientific method is. Not my job to open your brain or teach you grammar.

Some of the quotes you?ve found are hilariously creationist in nature and from the mouths, fingers and minds of individuals who don?t understand evolution or the scientific method. If I?m going to engage in a discussion with anyone about a matter this massive, they best have the same knowledge and understanding I have. You don?t. You?ve demonstrated as much as well as a keen interest in concluding that humans have not having been different ?in the beginning?, which is a ludicrous conclusion to come to by all accounts ? more evidence of your ignorance. What, pray tell, evidence do we have of a bipedal hominid existing pre-Ardi? None. BUT THERE COULD HAVE BEEN! There also could have been unicorns prior to horses. It?s still a fucking ludicrous thing to say sans evidence.

If you were being remotely reasonable or basing your opinions on something other than religion and hilariously unscientific commentary, I might be willing to discuss this with you for the sake of education. I?m not putting effort into what is ultimately a waste of time for me though. I can verify my correctness as can the universal scientific community. That?s good enough for me. Your approval doesn?t come into play. The scientific method is a bit higher up on that totem pole.

I am tired of addressing the readily dismissed only to have my concrete proof denied by those with agendas. While I am prone to these behaviours, they exhaust me. I entirely promote Dawkins? idea all discussion with creationists about evolution be halted. The energy I waste on these people could be used in a far more productive manner, hence why anyone displaying creationist behaviours makes the ignore list. I will not waste energy on what is a fool?s mission. I will keep those creationists who come up with fresh ways by which to "disprove" scientific theory for as long as they can throw new ideas at me and don't deny the scientific evidence that contradicts there "What if"'s. Responding to the same false evidences over and over again though is boring and frustrating. When scientifically legitimate criticisms become apparent I will thoroughly examine them. Until then, I have to make the world a better place by encouraging scientific output.

[Nihtgenga]

Originally Posted by Rachel Bronwyn

Here's the banana guy's butt boy (anyone a fan of Growing Pains?) demonstrating his idiocy while my pal Cristina provides commentary, exposing him for the bullshitter he is.

Oh, that was brilliant.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

"Every single piece of fossil ever found is a transitional form - from something to something else - you ignorrant moron" was my favourite line.

I love Kirk's "crocoduck" argument, suggesting in order for something to be transitional it has to be half the species it's evoling from and half the new species, ie: a duck body with a crocodile head.

Honestly, could he display his ignorrance towards evolution more blatantly?

[sodacat]

The best part about the crocoduck challenge was that we have found crocoducks.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

I'm sure it's not crocoducky enough for Kirk, Ray and his banana.

[genderhazard]

Originally Posted by OhZone

I thought the bananaman cleared this all up already!

[LookAtIt]

Jesus is my favorite zombie!

[TF-Viewer]

Originally Posted by genderhazard

... when he found out that humans had altered the banana.. he just automatically jumps to "god gave man the knowledge and ability to alter the banana" it's such a facepalm moment. That's just being stubborn.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Vid on Mitochondrial eve to any who is interested.

[genderhazard]

Originally Posted by TF-Viewer

... when he found out that humans had altered the banana.. he just automatically jumps to "god gave man the knowledge and ability to alter the banana" it's such a facepalm moment. That's just being stubborn.

Really no different than the was some evolutionist behave.

Thanks for the vid Hawkeye.

Rachael enjoy your meeting with Richard Dawkins