New Evidence Found To Show Humans Came From Fish

[BioStudent]

Don't be stupid.

Why was a baboon bone found in Lucy's skeleton? Scientists make bizarre discovery in 3.2 million-year-old fossil of early human | Daily Mail Online

Lucy Fails Test As Missing Link — The Forerunner

Let’s Talk About Lucy

Just a tip: If you want to sound reliable in an argument, use reliable sources. The Daily Mail is not, and will never be, a reliable source. Neither is scienceagainstevolution.org

The finding was originally reported in New Scientist, so cite the original source to show the story's credibility:
Baboon Bone Found in Famous Lucy Skeleton

If you had done that in the first place, several posts worth of arguing could have been avoided

 

[Jose Fly]

Don't be stupid.

Why was a baboon bone found in Lucy's skeleton? Scientists make bizarre discovery in 3.2 million-year-old fossil of early human | Daily Mail Online

Lucy Fails Test As Missing Link — The Forerunner

Let’s Talk About Lucy

First, thanks for finally answering. Second, I retract my statement that you were lying and I apologize.

Finally, I'm still not sure exactly what your point is.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Just a tip: If you want to sound reliable in an argument, use reliable sources. The Daily Mail is not, and will never be, a reliable source. Neither is scienceagainstevolution.org

The finding was originally reported in New Scientist, so cite the original source to show the story's credibility:
Baboon Bone Found in Famous Lucy Skeleton

If you had done that in the first place, several posts worth of arguing could have been avoided

My sources are fine. If you dont like them that's too bad.

I had thought this common knowledge and that Mr Fly was just playing games with me. I was wrong and I'm glad I was.

 

[Reggie Miller]

First, thanks for finally answering. Second, I retract my statement that you were lying and I apologize.

Finally, I'm still not sure exactly what your point is.

I also humbly apologize to you for the Mcfly comment, that was totally out of line and uncalled for.

My point is that Lucy was mistakenly supposedly the missing link between humans and our supposed ancestors and: It is believed by at least some that Lucy was intentionally faked to lead people to think it was. This allegedly shows that at least some scientists will lie in order to deceive people into believing in evolution of ape like creature to man.

 

[sayak83]

I also humbly apologize to you for the Mcfly comment, that was totally out of line and uncalled for.

My point is that Lucy was mistakenly supposedly the missing link between humans and our supposed ancestors and: It is believed by at least some that Lucy was intentionally faked to lead people to think it was. This allegedly shows that at least some scientists will lie in order to deceive people into believing in evolution of ape like creature to man.

A small misidentified minor vertebrate fragment out 88 bones, many of which are much larger and much more significant and extensively studied, supports none of these allegations. Its like saying Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong because there is a small typo in his paper!

 

[Reggie Miller]

A small misidentified minor vertebrate fragment out 88 bones, many of which are much larger and much more significant and extensively studied, supports none of these allegations. Its like saying Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong because there is a small typo in his paper!

I disagree, of course.

 

[james bond]

A protein is a string of amino acids. "Peptide" is what you use when talking specifically about the amino acid sequence and not the 3D structure it folds into. Getting the peptide to fold into the correct structure is trickier than just making it, but it also can and has been done.



Most current models of how life formed, based on experimental data, have life forming without oxygen, and we have evidence of pre-oxygen life on Earth. Your clarification is basically denying that the sky is blue.

If atheist scientists are telling you this, then they are wrong. Proteins are formed from amino acids, but it takes at least 20 amino acids to form them and they have to match in handedness. I can tell you did not read my link.

Duane Gish said, "20 different amino acids found in proteins today, hundreds of other kinds of amino acids would have been produced. In addition to deoxyribose and ribose, the five-carbon sugars found in DNA and RNA today, a variety of other five-carbon sugars, four-carbon, six-carbon, and seven-carbon sugars would have been produced. In addition to the five purines and pyrimidines found in DNA and RNA today, a great variety of other purines and pyrimidines would exist. Further, of vital significance, the amino acids in proteins today are exclusively left-handed..."

Furthermore, "... all amino acids on the primitive Earth would be 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed."

Thus, even if did string the amino acids to form a polypeptide through the use of ribosomes, it still does not become a protein. The ribosomes goes through further modification IN A CELL to become a protein. Without the cell, it does not become protein. Thus, atheist scientists still have not been able to create the building block of life. This is another evidence for God and that God is very ingenious in His design.

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that we had free oxygen during the early universe? That would match what the creation scientists are saying. Their models presumes that early universe had oxygen. That would be fatal to the Miller-Urey experiment.

 

[james bond]

No it doesn't. Knowledge and belief are different things. Atheism is lack of belief in god. It's not the assertion that there is no god, or that we know there is no god. Anti-theists can and do assert that there is no god, but they aren't the same thing.

Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive terms either. In fact, I consider myself an agnostic atheist.

It doesn't matter what you call yourself, ST. You're an atheist to me. If fact, I lump agonostics as atheists. They just have questions which the answers to probably do not lead them anywhere. I tell an atheist, an agnostic or a believer, the same things and yet they all process what I say differently. Probably ten years from now, the non-believers will all be at the same place while the believer may have evolved as a human being and in knowledge.

 

[sayak83]

I disagree, of course.

It is noteworthy that the original discoverer of the fossils (Dr. Johanson) noted in their original paper that this specific vertebrate looked out of place and had a different texture to it. But at that time and until now, no technology existed to properly check and quantify how different it was from the others and hence it was kept in, but never used for the reconstructions. Now that advanced analysis has confirmed that that specific fragment probably does not belong, and every other of the 88 bones do, the authenticity of the skeleton has been confirmed.
Why Lucy’s baboon bone is great for science (and evolution theory)

 

[Jose Fly]

I also humbly apologize to you for the Mcfly comment, that was totally out of line and uncalled for.

Thank you for saying that.

My point is that Lucy was mistakenly supposedly the missing link between humans and our supposed ancestors

Unfortunately the media likes to play up the "missing link" term because it gets attention and clicks. In reality however, there is no "missing link" between humans and other primates. Instead what we have are a suite of fossil specimens, representing multiple species over millions of years, that when combined with other lines of evidence (comparative genetics, biogeography, comparative anatomy) make it abundantly clear that humans do indeed share a common ancestry with other primates.

The main thing that's still being figured out is exactly how that occurred, as in which species are our direct ancestors and which ones were evolutionary dead ends. And even within that there's more nuance. For example, while the Neanderthals can be described as a "dead end", we now know that they actually contributed to our current genome.

It is believed by at least some that Lucy was intentionally faked to lead people to think it was.

Sure. There are people who think all of NASA's images showing a spherical, moving earth are fake.

This allegedly shows that at least some scientists will lie in order to deceive people into believing in evolution of ape like creature to man.

Well, before they can make that accusation they'd have to show where a scientist actually lied.

 

[sayak83]

If atheist scientists are telling you this, then they are wrong. Proteins are formed from amino acids, but it takes at least 20 amino acids to form them and they have to match in handedness. I can tell you did not read my link.

Duane Gish said, "20 different amino acids found in proteins today, hundreds of other kinds of amino acids would have been produced. In addition to deoxyribose and ribose, the five-carbon sugars found in DNA and RNA today, a variety of other five-carbon sugars, four-carbon, six-carbon, and seven-carbon sugars would have been produced. In addition to the five purines and pyrimidines found in DNA and RNA today, a great variety of other purines and pyrimidines would exist. Further, of vital significance, the amino acids in proteins today are exclusively left-handed..."

Furthermore, "... all amino acids on the primitive Earth would be 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed."

Thus, even if did string the amino acids to form a polypeptide through the use of ribosomes, it still does not become a protein. The ribosomes goes through further modification IN A CELL to become a protein. Without the cell, it does not become protein. Thus, atheist scientists still have not been able to create the building block of life. This is another evidence for God and that God is very ingenious in His design.

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that we had free oxygen during the early universe? That would match what the creation scientists are saying. Their models presumes that early universe had oxygen. That would be fatal to the Miller-Urey experiment.

The left-handed-ness problem has already been resolved
LINK
All your so-called problems have already been resolved and the answers to them presented in the Abiogenesis thread. Thanks.

For example:- The precursors to ONLY the amino acids present in living systems have been successfully produced under abiogenetic conditions experimentally in-situ with RNA and cell-membrane molecules. Thus while other conditions can produce other types of amino-acids, life can only arise in those conditions where amino acids, RNA and cell membrane molecules can simultaneously form, and this restricts the number of possible amino acids to the number we have in biology.

Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand

Hollow claims of pseudoscientific ICR again proves to be clever lies and misinformation.

 

[Jose Fly]

If atheist scientists are telling you this, then they are wrong....

Duane Gish said....

And there's your problem. While those of us on the science side rely on actual scientists for scientific information, you rely on Chick tracts and Duane Gish.

I wonder if you would be ok with that sort of approach to other topics? Like say, if someone told you they relied on Richard Dawkins for their information about Christianity and the Bible, would that strike you as reasonable?

 

[sayak83]

And there's your problem. While those of us on the science side rely on actual scientists for scientific information, you rely on Chick tracts and Duane Gish.

I wonder if you would be ok with that sort of approach to other topics? Like say, if someone told you they relied on Richard Dawkins for their information about Christianity and the Bible, would that strike you as reasonable?

No, No you are being to hard on Dawkins!
Obviously we know Jesus did not resurrect as we have his tomb (with skeleton and all) in Kashmir!
Jesus in Kashmir

But must say that quality wise this kind of "evidence" is still better than what icr groups post in their nonsense books...

 

[james bond]

Not that I know of, but you can read all about the experiment in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal article I posted.



Yes we do. We've seen the evolution of new species in real time, both in the wild and in the lab.



Can you provide me an independently verifiable, documented act of God?



Not sure what you think that shows. You do realize there are lots of different types of geologic strata, right?



And again, you truly believe that no scientist has ever figured out any sort of explanation for them, correct? You are completely unaware of any such explanation?


Well there's one of your problems. You get your science from Chick tracts.



Walk me through the logic path that starts with "soft tissues have been found in dinosaur fossils" and concludes with "therefore populations don't evolve".



Ah, so you're a conspiracy theorist too, and you also see this in primarily religious terms. Thought so. So tell me.....how do you account for the fact that the majority of "evolutionists" in the world are not atheists?



Nope, you're still not making any sense at all. It looks to me like you're just randomly throwing out whatever creationist talking points you've memorized, regardless of whether or not they have any bearing on what we were discussing.



Yes the origin of the first life forms on earth remains a mystery. That's why it's still an active area of research. So I'm not sure what your point is, unless you're just doing what I said earlier, i.e., running as fast as you can to a gap in our knowledge and declaring "You'll never figure this out because God did it!!!!"

You know there's a term for such a thing, right? God of the Gaps

So there is no practical experiment. My Guy Berthault was practical and destroyed evolutionists claim of a fossil chronology. We see the experimental evidence at Mt. St. Helens.

You may claim to do so, but there isn't. You're under a delusion of evolution.

Ha ha. I did through science, but here's another one through a miracle -- Mystery 'Angel' Priest Appears At Missouri Car Crash, Performs 'Miracle,' Then Disappears (UPDATE) | The Huffington Post . First, read what happened by the liberal HuffPo. However, here's the rest of the story -- 'Mystery priest' and 'miracle' car crash survivor Katie Lentz hold emotional reunion .

The different geologic strata shows that evolutionists chronology is made up bull puckey which I'm glad to see you are admitting.

What it means is the dinosaurs aren't hundreds of millions of years old as "claimed." The evos dating methods are wrong and the creation scientists have said so and proved it using science. Can I help it if atheist scientists won't peer review their data and experiments?

I used Chick Tracts (thanks to Skwim) because it's good to show this point. It also make you look and sound like the professor in your posts, i.e. cartoonish. I would say it's one of your problems and that's because you do not learn from Chick Tracts when there are things one can learn from it.

It tells us that evolutionary chronological age from fossils is futile. However creation scientists state fossils do give us a great deal of helpful information and add to our knowledge of Earth and God's greatness. It's another evidence for God. According to creation scientists, soft tissue means dinosaurs aren't millions or billions of years old. They think it will help find how old the Earth really is. Thus, it's a work in progress.

I would say the conspiracy is on the evos side. Creation scientists look for the truth. Their only assumption and foundation is the Bible. I would disagree that evolutionary scientists are not atheists based on Pew Research. What do you have to back up your statement?

Dr. Gish's explanation is proof that God created the universe based on Genesis. It shows how it happened, so you're one of those who does not get it. I think you should take your own advice in your sig based on this statement that you made.

You even do not know the basis of God of the Gaps. I think it comes from Sir Francis Bacon warnings to Christian scientists, i.e. do not rely on God when you cannot explain something. Look to show God's greatness scientifically. Atheists and evolutionists stole this concept for their own self-serving purposed when debating the Big Bang Theory. This stealing of ideas and theories from creation scientists is shown by creation scientists throughout the history of evolution vs creationism. It shows the superiority of creation science versus atheist science.

 

[james bond]

And there's your problem. While those of us on the science side rely on actual scientists for scientific information, you rely on Chick tracts and Duane Gish.

I wonder if you would be ok with that sort of approach to other topics? Like say, if someone told you they relied on Richard Dawkins for their information about Christianity and the Bible, would that strike you as reasonable?

I think the problem is you do not listen to Chick Tracts and Duane Gish. I just used Chick Tracts since you're so much like the professor in Big Daddy haha. His name could be Professor Jose Fly.

Well, one thing Dawkins said was he respected Young Earth Creationists more than OEC. He thought OEC were weak sauce. It's a contradiction because OEC believe in evolution. The difference is the truth and knowledge from the creation source where Dawkins is basically there to sell his books and make money.

 

[Shad]

Yes, I want you leave, but I'm not whining about it. I'm offering evidence about it:

1. You show by your presence you believe in God and are in denial/having a conversion reaction.

I am merely pointing out your fallacious arguments.

2. You are belligerent, underscoring stereotypes about nasty atheists.

You merely use that label as I point out the flaws in your arguments and flaws in your demands. You call it belligerent as I do not sit around letting you say whatever you want without being challenged nor sugar coat anything to comfort you. Instead of producing a counter-argument you complain, again

3. Shall I go on? (Not whining.)

Go for it.

 

[Jose Fly]

So there is no practical experiment.

Oh for the love of......

Every time I think you creationists can't get any more ridiculous, you manage to surprise me. Here, you're actually arguing that an experiment that's published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences....the most prestigious scientific journal in the world.....isn't actually an experiment because it's not on Youtube.

At this point, I'm running out of synonyms for "stupid", "dumb", "idiotic"......

My Guy Berthault was practical and destroyed evolutionists claim of a fossil chronology. We see the experimental evidence at Mt. St. Helens.

Um.....no. The Berthault experiment showed that a specific type of lamination within a single sedimentary layer can be the result of size-sorting rather than chronological layering. But as I noted the first time, there are all sorts of different types of geologic strata besides sedimentary. Also there are sedimentary strata that have no lamination at all.

As for Mt. St. Helens, what exactly do you think it shows?

You may claim to do so, but there isn't. You're under a delusion of evolution.

I posted data. Your simplistic "Nuh uh" is hardly a meaningful rebuttal.

- Mystery 'Angel' Priest Appears At Missouri Car Crash, Performs 'Miracle,' Then Disappears (UPDATE) | The Huffington Post . First, read what happened by the liberal HuffPo. However, here's the rest of the story -- 'Mystery priest' and 'miracle' car crash survivor Katie Lentz hold emotional reunion .

?????? So a priest helps a crash victim, and to you that's a documented act of God? Exactly how was it independently established as an act of God?

The different geologic strata shows that evolutionists chronology is made up bull puckey which I'm glad to see you are admitting.

What the....?

At this point I'm wondering if you really are this dim, or if you are trolling me hoping to goad me into a reaction.

Either way, like with the poster Omega, I'm not going to bother responding to such idiocy.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think the problem is you do not listen to Chick Tracts and Duane Gish.

I'll just let that speak for itself.

 

[james bond]

Oh for the love of......

Every time I think you creationists can't get any more ridiculous, you manage to surprise me. Here, you're actually arguing that an experiment that's published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences....the most prestigious scientific journal in the world.....isn't actually an experiment because it's not on Youtube.

At this point, I'm running out of synonyms for "stupid", "dumb", "idiotic"......



Um.....no. The Berthault experiment showed that a specific type of lamination within a single sedimentary layer can be the result of size-sorting rather than chronological layering. But as I noted the first time, there are all sorts of different types of geologic strata besides sedimentary. Also there are sedimentary strata that have no lamination at all.

As for Mt. St. Helens, what exactly do you think it shows?



I posted data. Your simplistic "Nuh uh" is hardly a meaningful rebuttal.



?????? So a priest helps a crash victim, and to you that's a documented act of God? Exactly how was it independently established as an act of God?



What the....?

At this point I'm wondering if you really are this dim, or if you are trolling me hoping to goad me into a reaction.

Either way, like with the poster Omega, I'm not going to bother responding to such idiocy.

It doesn't matter if it is the most prestigious in the world. You do not understand what happened between the 1800s and 2011. The creation scientists were expelled from the world of science. And that makes you what is in your sig. However, the creation scientists formed their own group and have been able to fight back. I can tell you're not a scientist because if you were, then you would know this and not have to rely on stupid sigs and posts that you post. What creation scientists are interested in is science and the truth. It's the atheists who are the truly stupid ones. The believe in bought and paid for science.

I have more for you. Ignorant, disabled, concussed, racist who believes men came from apes*, internet atheist, dumb b*stard, moron and more. * There's the Russian experiment when men and chimps were created in a test tube and lived. These creatures only lived one generation. Go explain that.

More idiocy.

Mt. St. Helens shows sedimentary layers forms in very short time. It's just like the other sedimentary layers. This means catastrophism is right and uniformitarianism is wrong. Charles Lyell can be lumped in with his pupil Darwin.

You posted data that you could not back up. Just like you can't answer my questions.

I said nothing will make you believe. This man appeared out of nowhere and was able to calm the people and then a fire engine with heavier tools was able to come by. They were out of time. When you die, you will get to experience the fear and darkness and you will have your atheist compadres to help you to your final destination. You will get all the evidence that you want.

You cannot explain the petrified trees nor any of the other discrepancies I pointed out. You cannot see the evidence for God. I used science throughout my arguments while you used bought and paid for science. We have established that humans did not come from fish and birds are not dinosaurs or the weird things evolutionists believe. All you have are hypotheses and science admits as much. All of it will be pseudoscience one day like the eternal universe, abiogenesis, tiktaalik, Lucy, the evolution timeline and whatnot that you believed in.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I've heard about the "percentage of atheists" in prison, which studies failed to take into account:

1. It's not a popular gig to identify as atheist to parole boards

2. A LOT of people get SAVED in PRISON

3. Etc.

And yes, instead of pursuing God here on the boards, why not pursue God? Inefficient technique now, I daresay.

I assure you I have no will or desire to pursue a relationship with your imaginary chum in any venue. Let's be real though, history teaches us that religions cause war and discord rather than prevent or heal them.

What you see as the way I see as both a giant leap backwards and a roadblock to the sort of peaceful existence you allude to.