Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

How do you feel about this one from Smithsonian? "The picture is on T-shirts, coffee mugs and bumper stickers: the ubiquitous but misinformed image of the evolution of humankind."
WHAT???? "misinformed image" that is taught and displayed about evolution? What they say? (there's more...)
Read more: New Ancient Ape Species Rewrites the Story of Bipedalism | Science | Smithsonian

Christ on a bicycle! You can't be serious. The March of Progress is wrong because it is grossly oversimplified. That is all. That article is about how we are continuingly filling in the history of man. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dishonest/shmonest -- Just like the gravity illustration and your ridiculous parallel of starting a trip. The following "trip" has been rearranged lately:
Imagine this change of "information" to the public:
The Smithsonian published information about the following discovery.
(I know you know the picture spoken of that is on "T-shirts, coffee mugs and bumper stickers." Most of us do and have been taught this. And now what????????????)
Which is described as "the ubiquitous but misinformed image of the evolution of humankind." Misinformed??? WHAT???
New Ancient Ape Species Rewrites the Story of Bipedalism | Science | Smithsonian
(Go argue with that.)

Seriously dude, you cannot blame others for your own ignorance. At this point you should be apologizing and trying to learn. When one refuses to learn, as you have been, that person no longer can blame poor teachers. The fault is that of the person refusing to learn.

and as a Christian you have no excuse. The fact that you are an ape and that all of Genesis is myth does not refute Christianity. It only refutes an overly literalistic interpretation of the Bible. Do you believe that the Earth is flat? If not, why not? The Bible only describes the Earth as flat in word and deed, yet most Christians have no problem rejecting that literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

[YoursTrue]

Christ on a bicycle! You can't be serious. The March of Progress is wrong because it is grossly oversimplified. That is all. That article is about how we are continuingly filling in the history of man. Why is that so hard to understand?

Say it isn't so. DUDE, now science is finding...that wait a minute...maybe we didn't evolve into two legged walkers from four leg and arm walkers? This is getting better and better. The drawing splaining evolution from the greater or lesser apes maybe just isn't so? Trip rerouted.

 

[YoursTrue]

Seriously dude, you cannot blame others for your own ignorance. At this point you should be apologizing and trying to learn. When one refuses to learn, as you have been, that person no longer can blame poor teachers. The fault is that of the person refusing to learn.

and as a Christian you have no excuse. The fact that you are an ape and that all of Genesis is myth does not refute Christianity. It only refutes an overly literalistic interpretation of the Bible. Do you believe that the Earth is flat? If not, why not? The Bible only describes the Earth as flat in word and deed, yet most Christians have no problem rejecting that literal interpretation of the Bible.

(Lol)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Say it isn't so. DUDE, now science is finding...that wait a minute...maybe we didn't evolve into two legged walkers from four leg and arm walkers? This is getting better and better. The drawing splaining evolution from the greater or lesser apes maybe just isn't so? Trip rerouted.

What on earth are you talking about?

Do you not understand the difference between science and an illustration from a book?

 

[ratiocinator]

Say it isn't so. DUDE, now science is finding...that wait a minute...maybe we didn't evolve into two legged walkers from four leg and arm walkers? This is getting better and better. The drawing splaining evolution from the greater or lesser apes maybe just isn't so? Trip rerouted.

You're just underlining your own ignorance. Why is it that creationists don't want to learn even the basics of science, let alone evolution?

 

[Polymath257]

Say it isn't so. DUDE, now science is finding...that wait a minute...maybe we didn't evolve into two legged walkers from four leg and arm walkers? This is getting better and better. The drawing splaining evolution from the greater or lesser apes maybe just isn't so? Trip rerouted.

This is analogous to finding Jupiter has 12 moons instead of 10. It is just a tweak on our understanding and not particularly a big deal.

The 'march of progress' picture is a *trope*. It is NOT a scientific description, but almost a parody of the facts. So, yes, it is widely seen and a very simplistic misunderstanding of the reality.

 

[Astrophile]

As I pointed out to someone else, here's another little "change" in the concept and thought about how mankind came about (not from a "creationist" source, by the way):
"The picture is on T-shirts, coffee mugs and bumper stickers: the ubiquitous but misinformed image of the evolution of humankind."
What??? ubiquitous but -- MISINFORMED???? WHAT????
Read more: New Ancient Ape Species Rewrites the Story of Bipedalism | Science | Smithsonian

This is an interesting new discovery, but it is not relevant to the origin of life.

 

[Polymath257]

How do you feel about this one from Smithsonian? "The picture is on T-shirts, coffee mugs and bumper stickers: the ubiquitous but misinformed image of the evolution of humankind."
WHAT???? "misinformed image" that is taught and displayed about evolution? What they say? (there's more...)
Read more: New Ancient Ape Species Rewrites the Story of Bipedalism | Science | Smithsonian

Following the link in your link:
The March of Progress Has Deep Roots

"The "March of Progress" as it appeared during the 1960's, then, was not so much a novel image as a particularly well-known example of scientific and satirical imagery that had been around for over a century. Though it can be aggravating, it is not surprising that it is still with us. It appears to speak to the heart of evolution, that "life changes over time", yet this overly generalized view of evolution does not tell us about the way the evolutionary process works or the pattern it leaves behind. Like the term "missing link", it is recognized as representing evolution, yet just what sort of evolution that might be is left open to interpretation."

So, yes, a ubiquitous and misinformed image of the evolution of humankind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Say it isn't so. DUDE, now science is finding...that wait a minute...maybe we didn't evolve into two legged walkers from four leg and arm walkers? This is getting better and better. The drawing splaining evolution from the greater or lesser apes maybe just isn't so? Trip rerouted.

Wow! If you did not understand the article you should have said so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

(Lol)

Laughing is not an excuse for your continued ignorance here. You sound like someone trying to disprove Christianity by saying:

"Christians believe that Jesus was nailed to a tree. Well where's the tree?? No tree no Jesus"

That is truly how bad your arguments have been. What you presented was an article adding to our knowledge and then you complained about something that we knew was over simplified as if you found out that there was "no tree".

 

[YoursTrue]

Laughing is not an excuse for your continued ignorance here. You sound like someone trying to disprove Christianity by saying:

"Christians believe that Jesus was nailed to a tree. Well where's the tree?? No tree no Jesus"

That is truly how bad your arguments have been. What you presented was an article adding to our knowledge and then you complained about something that we knew was over simplified as if you found out that there was "no tree".

Sad to say, it sounds like how you reason.
For years, similar to Haeckel's imaginary and misrepresented drawings presented to unsuspecting schoolchildren for decades, we now have another sinkhole in the supposed route you draw as a parallel. I really love you for your support of the myth about evolution as has been presented for decades to unsuspecting students and adults alike as "truth." Best way I can describe your support of the indefensible is incredible. But -- here it is for you again -- (from the article in Smithsonian):
"The theory that the last common ancestor of humans and apes walked on its knuckles like a chimpanzee is not supported by the fossil record, although it has seen popularity in scientific discourse."
Read more: New Ancient Ape Species Rewrites the Story of Bipedalism | Science | Smithsonian

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sad to say, it sounds like how you reason.
For years, similar to Haeckel's imaginary and misrepresented drawings presented to unsuspecting schoolchildren for decades, we now have another sinkhole in the supposed route you draw as a parallel. I really love you for your support of the myth about evolution as has been presented for decades to unsuspecting students and adults alike as "truth." Best way I can describe your support of the indefensible is incredible. But -- here it is for you again -- (from the article in Smithsonian):
"The theory that the last common ancestor of humans and apes walked on its knuckles like a chimpanzee is not supported by the fossil record, although it has seen popularity in scientific discourse."
Read more: New Ancient Ape Species Rewrites the Story of Bipedalism | Science | Smithsonian

Once again you bear false witness against your neighbor. Haeckel's drawings were not imagined. Why do you do this? And they were not used in the manner that you claim that they were. Also, since evolution is a fact does it matter all that much if they used his drawings or not?

And I see that you are still having a difficult time understanding the article that you posted.

 

[YoursTrue]

Laughing is not an excuse for your continued ignorance here. You sound like someone trying to disprove Christianity by saying:

"Christians believe that Jesus was nailed to a tree. Well where's the tree?? No tree no Jesus"

That is truly how bad your arguments have been. What you presented was an article adding to our knowledge and then you complained about something that we knew was over simplified as if you found out that there was "no tree".

Nope . You misunderstood. The article wasn't trying to disprove evolution, lol, as you seem to think I think. Nope, not at all. But you refuse to see the obvious. It really does remind me of political prejudice. (As some scientists have said, who find holes in the theory of evolution...) Yes, the parallel of the route is not only misleading but filled with portions ready to sink.
New Ancient Ape Species Rewrites the Story of Bipedalism | Science | Smithsonian

 

[YoursTrue]

Once again you bear false witness against your neighbor. Haeckel's drawings were not imagined. Why do you do this? And they were not used in the manner that you claim that they were. Also, since evolution is a fact does it matter all that much if they used his drawings or not?

And I see that you are still having a difficult time understanding the article that you posted.

Again -- you really need to rethink your erroneous stand on this (Haeckel's erroneous drawings.) Best to you and have a good evening.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope . You misunderstood. The article wasn't trying to disprove evolution, lol, as you seem to think I think. Nope, not at all. But you refuse to see the obvious. It really does remind me of political prejudice. (As some scientists have said, who find holes in the theory of evolution...) Yes, the parallel of the route is not only misleading but filled with portions ready to sink.
New Ancient Ape Species Rewrites the Story of Bipedalism | Science | Smithsonian

I see the obvious. You refuse to learn from your errors. You have a problem with a simplified drawing that was known to be have flaws from the start. All simplified drawings are going to have flaws. It was an artist's rendition, not that of a scientist. You have a typical problem of most creationists of being overly literalitstic.

Can you tell my why you do not believe in a flat Earth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again -- you really need to rethink your erroneous stand on this (Haeckel's erroneous drawings.) Best to you and have a good evening.

I am not the one in error here. I am not the one that has been lying about them.

Tell me, why do those drawings bother you so much?

And can you please at least try to be a little more honest?

 

[Subduction Zone]

@YoursTrue you keep claiming that Haeckel's drawings were erroneous. They were not. I explained to you what he did wrong. I could support that but you have not asked for support. But since you claimed they were erroneous that puts the burden of proof upon you. Find a specific error in his drawings. As explained earlier exaggerating observations was not an error. It was common back then. That was to help people find the objects since microscopic photographs did not exist back then. What specific errors did Haeckel make?

Do you hate the fact that regardless of Haeckel that embryology is still a study and still evidence for evolution?

 

[YoursTrue]

@YoursTrue you keep claiming that Haeckel's drawings were erroneous. They were not. I explained to you what he did wrong. I could support that but you have not asked for support. But since you claimed they were erroneous that puts the burden of proof upon you. Find a specific error in his drawings. As explained earlier exaggerating observations was not an error. It was common back then. That was to help people find the objects since microscopic photographs did not exist back then. What specific errors did Haeckel make?

Do you hate the fact that regardless of Haeckel that embryology is still a study and still evidence for evolution?

The evidence you speak of changes. So sometimes forensics and other determinants prove a verdict wrong, but a judge may still uphold the wrong verdict. It depends I believe on the mindset of the judge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence you speak of changes. So sometimes forensics and other determinants prove a verdict wrong, but a judge may still uphold the wrong verdict. It depends I believe on the mindset of the judge.

No, there was no change in the evidence. But, yes, at times a judge may be wrong. But no judge is wrong millions of times.

Once again, you should really try to learn what is and what is not evidence.