Evolution is a Big Lie

[Iti oj]

You shot yourself in the food with this one. You're suggesting that imperfect design is evidence of a perfect creator? For one, nipples would have no reason to disappear, it isn't a trait that's been detrimental to survival. Also, the fact that we have useless physiological features doesn't suggest intentional design by an intelligent being.

That was my point. faulty and useless designs disprove a designer and works in favore of evolution that can explain and predict them /.

 

[camanintx]

I guess i can buy into evolution as far as things changing but its only from the point of view of things going from order to disorder.This seems to be observed in everyday common knowledge. This seems to ring true intuitively.

The idea that things go from order to disorder only applies in the absence of external forces. In space you can throughly mix oil and water but put them in a gravitational field and they quickly separate, going from disorder to order. Why should we expect evolution to be any different?

OK I am with you on this.I see these changes as information being affected. I know natural selection can select from information but the information must be there to select from.I understand how those processes are effecting information.I want to understand the process of new information being provided.Does mutation add new information or just effect pre existing information? I am honestly trying to understand this from a simplistic point of view.

Random mutations can either add or remove information but this really has nothing to do with whether they are harmful or beneficial. The sickle cell trait could be considered a loss of information for building proper red blood cells yet it gives you immunity to malaria so it is beneficial.

 

[Shermana]

You mean like I did here?

Perhaps you'd like to actually quote something from it that conclusively debunks what I posted and quoted from. Perhaps you don't understand what "pick apart" means, I was referring to actually debunking the specific claims in some of the many articles I posted and quoted from, not just flinging a link. But if you think that's all you have to do to effectively disprove what I quoted, thanks for demonstrating. For example, look at your "conclusions" section if you don't want to examine all the details, and tell me if and how they have effectively and solidly debunked the redshift phenemenon in their summary. Or if you want to go for the gold, actively show which part demonstrates, heck, mention a page even if you don't want to quote it, that totally debunks everything I posted from their observations.

And perhaps someone wants to write to the Max Planck institute and tell them that they were fools for hiring Alp, I'd REALLY like to hear their response. Someone? Anyone?

 

[outhouse]

Perhaps you'd like to actually quote something from it that conclusively debunks what I posted and quoted from. Perhaps you don't understand what "pick apart" means, I was referring to actually debunking the specific claims in some of the many articles I posted, not just flinging a link. But if you think that's all you have to do to effectively disprove what I quoted, thanks for demonstrating.

You dont have a valid idea to debate.

pseudoscience is not worth debating or waisting time on.

You discount most all of science to your own untrained version

 

[Iti oj]

Perhaps you'd like to actually quote something from it that conclusively debunks what I posted and quoted from. Perhaps you don't understand what "pick apart" means, I was referring to actually debunking the specific claims in some of the many articles I posted and quoted from, not just flinging a link. But if you think that's all you have to do to effectively disprove what I quoted, thanks for demonstrating. For example, look at your "conclusions" section if you don't want to examine all the details, and tell me if they have effectively and solidly debunked the redshift phenemenon in their summary. Or if you want to go for the gold, actively show which part demonstrates, heck, mention a page even if you don't want to quote it, that totally debunks everything I posted from their observations.

And perhaps someone wants to write to the Max Planck institute and tell them that they were fools for hiring Alp, I'd REALLY like to hear their response. Someone? Anyone?

You have yet to post anything worth debunking you twist others people words or make assertions, then claim that our scientifically accepted claims back up by evidence are just assertions. The links i have seen you post have nothing to do with your argument. Instead of discussing the matter at hand you attack us or the way we make out arguments instead of our arguments and points.

 

[Shermana]

Ask Shermana.

Ummm, why would you ask me about Nipples on man? Am I the one who first made the objection? Perhaps you didn't see what I said about how we start off as female chassis? Perhaps you'd like to answer why we have no tails but still have nipples on men?

I see that I got no response to my response about the tailbone and appendix though. Like I said, if you want to say the Tailbone is useless, I'll pay for your tailbone removal. But you'll have to pay for your own Depends.

 

[Iti oj]

Ummm, why would you ask me about Nipples on man? Am I the one who first made the objection? Perhaps you didn't see what I said about how we start off as female chassis? Perhaps you'd like to answer why we have no tails but still have nipples on men?

I already explained why we have nipples. of course when i make valid point you ignore, only want to reply to the mistakes i make? I only brought up nipple because an intelligent designer would have no reason for giving us nipples or tailbones or appendixes. you really like to twist words and hide in shadows.

 

[Shermana]

Ummm, what part about us starting as Female chassis didn't you get? Are you referring to that video with the spastastic guy? Talk about ignoring points, did you totally ignore what I said about the Tailbone and Appendix? I love when people accuse others of what they do. Okay, so like I said, if you'd like, I will TOTALLY pay for your tailbone removal if you think it's useless. Let me know when you want the operation. If not, why not?

 

[Iti oj]

Ummm, what part about us starting as Female chassis didn't you get? Are you referring to that video with the spastastic guy? Talk about ignoring points, did you totally ignore what I said about the Tailbone and Appendix? I love when people accuse others of what they do. Okay, so like I said, if you'd, I will TOTALLY pay for your tailbone removal if you think it's useless. Let me know when you want the operation.

No i replied to both thanks for reading my posts. your a great debater.:sarcastic I guess I'll have to go quote mine my own posts to show you?

 

[Shermana]

You said the same thing about nipples I did, and then said I ignored your points. Is this like when you said that my article on the bat wing enforced your view and when I asked how, you said "Forget the bat wing"? Why don't you explain why we lost tails to begin with. No one wants to touch the issue of the arched feet also I see. And no one wants to touch the issue of how long it would take for these changes to occur. Just the complexities of the foot muscles alone would take millions of years. I even posted an article showing how much disagreement there is on basic issues on the transition to bipedalism and how as of yet (and probably ever), no scientist has any clue.

Considering how crucial the Tailbone is for movement and bowel control, I don't see why its not so intelligently designed. You also never answered my question about why you question the backbone.

 

[Iti oj]

Sher.....

I never said anything was useless. you put that word in my mouth. of course we need our tail bone we evolved that why, my question is why design us that way? the appendix if it does have the use you suggest with you link and qoute(thank you btw) use to have a much larger and more important role. Why wouldnt evultion evolve the perfect back? were still evolving, not done yet, has not had time time to fix itself maybe, maybe evolution does not require perfection just something that works. We evolved from quadrupeds, our backbone shows this. As for my nipple example, its all about what happens between when we were conceived and when we are born.

I don't bring up these examples to support evolution though some of the examples do. I bring up the examples to point out the lack of intelligent design. You can keep twisting and you can keep hiding or you can start discussing this with me in earnest.

I expanded on the nipple thing saying it has to do with fetus development

 

[Shermana]

You have yet to post anything worth debunking you twist others people words or make assertions, then claim that our scientifically accepted claims back up by evidence are just assertions. The links i have seen you post have nothing to do with your argument. Instead of discussing the matter at hand you attack us or the way we make out arguments instead of our arguments and points.

Why don't you get an example from what I quoted and show how I twisted other's words exactly. Did you even read the article that supposedly debunks Redshift? Do you think it conclusively debunks the academic papers I presented? If so, how, in detail?

 

[Shermana]

Sher.....
I expanded on the nipple thing saying it has to do with fetus development

And that's different from what I first said about how we start off as a female chassis how?

 

[Iti oj]

You said the same thing about nipples I did, and then said I ignored your points. Is this like when you said that my article on the bat wing enforced your view and when I asked how, you said "Forget the bat wing"? Why don't you explain why we lost tails to begin with. No one wants to touch the issue of the arched feet also I see. And no one wants to touch the issue of how long it would take for these changes to occur. Just the complexities of the foot muscles alone would take millions of years. I even posted an article showing how much disagreement there is on basic issues on the transition to bipedalism and how as of yet (and probably ever), no scientist has any clue.

Considering how crucial the Tailbone is for movement and bowel control, I don't see why its not so intelligently designed. You also never answered my question about why you question the backbone.

you are trolling i responded to all of these questions at least twice now a third time. bipedal... evolution accounts for things to evolve separately and multiple times and in different ways.....nothing more to explain of course it evolved independently some failing some living on. thats how evolution works. For the back bone my point was why would we be designed with the less superior back arc? evolution account for this because we came from quadrupeds... Why havent we evolved them better? because were still evolving. their has not been enough time or selection pressure or mutations for this change to yet arrive. maybe brain development was more important then a better designed back. so selection pushed that... and one last point things changed together. ie has our brain got bigger and our back straighter our foot muscles changed to..all small changes happening simultaneously because with out it changing together how would it be an advantage and not a weakness. maybe the same mutated gene controlled the development of both.... do you even have a real argument or understanding of the topic? you just spew dissent and act like that's a valid argument... people use to think germs did not exist because we did not see them. atoms were speculated about by the Greeks. not knowing or having a full map does not mean the destination is false. can you please attack the idea its self and stop wasting our time with your bogus "arguments" and can you actually read my posts.

 

[Shermana]

Calling me trolling might constitute a "rude" post, but I really don't see how anything you said answers any of what I asked. You claim that I ignore points? That's just cute. Would you like me to list each and every issue you are ignoring and then saying that I'm not making any point?

you just spew dissent and act like that's a valid argument..

That would be a fair assessment if I didn't actually bring up specific issues like the vast amount of time it would take (far exceeding the time frame in question) for the changes to occur and questions like "Why did we lose the tail". Nice cop out.

 

[Iti oj]

And that's different from what I first said about how we start off as a female chassis how?

See this is what im talking about deliberate misquotes, this question has nothing to do with your argument. nothing at all. It doesnt discredit evolution in the slightest, your attacking me and my style. You instead of replying to the point of my post why would a designer design us this way a perfect designer would have no use of a universal chasis btw) your just trying to sow dissent and to confound people.

 

[Iti oj]

i quoted the wrong post i mean to quote my own.

 

[Iti oj]

I never said anything was useless. you put that word in my mouth. of course we need our tail bone we evolved that why, my question is why design us that way? the appendix if it does have the use you suggest with you link and qoute(thank you btw) use to have a much larger and more important role. Why wouldnt evultion evolve the perfect back? were still evolving, not done yet, has not had time time to fix itself maybe, maybe evolution does not require perfection just something that works. We evolved from quadrupeds, our backbone shows this. As for my nipple example, its all about what happens between when we were conceived and when we are born.

I don't bring up these examples to support evolution though some of the examples do. I bring up the examples to point out the lack of intelligent design. You can keep twisting and you can keep hiding or you can start discussing this with me in earnest.

here look responses and i re responded again..

 

[Shermana]

See this is what im talking about deliberate misquotes, this question has nothing to do with your argument. nothing at all. It doesnt discredit evolution in the slightest, your attacking me and my style. You instead of replying to the point of my post why would a designer design us this way a perfect designer would have no use of a universal chasis btw) your just trying to sow dissent and to confound people.

Huh? I really don't understand your point. You said that you expanded by saying that it involves fetal development, which is what I said initially about being a female chassis. How am I attacking you and your style? I don't see why this female-chassis-origin in any way discredits intelligent design. So if I say that I brought up a point before you did while you claim I ignore the point you made, that's "dissent"? I suppose I'm dissenting against your accusation that I ignored your point when I first brought it up to begin with.

Your argument that the tailbone and appendix not being as perfect as you think they should be way is more of an opinion than an argument, and you have yet to explain why the backbone is less than perfect for bipedalism (which also ventures into the territory of flaws in the evolution of the backbone)

 

[Iti oj]

Calling me trolling might constitute a "rude" post, but I really don't see how anything you said answers any of what I asked. You claim that I ignore points? That's just cute. Would you like me to list each and every issue you are ignoring and then saying that I'm not making any point?

That would be a fair assessment if I didn't actually bring up specific issues like the vast amount of time it would take (far exceeding the time frame in question) for the changes to occur and questions like "Why did we lose the tail". Nice cop out.

how old do you think the planet is