Not so intelligent design or evolution? You make the call..

[JPinMaryland]

Its very unlikely this guy's mother and father looked like him, so who's the missing link? (scroll about half way down the page)


http://www.iran-daily.com/1385/2739/html/science.htm#s197196

[Overlay]

Would there have to be a missing link? Couldn't it just be an isolated mutation or birth defect rather than any indication of a new species, or of any significance from an evolutionary perspective? Or am I missing your point?

[Dick Schmidt]

So if it wasn't evolution in action (it died as a newborn or even before birth) then the answer to why it exists is that God screwed up? Not much intelligence in this design.


Dick

God huh? My imaginary friend's name is Bobo.

[JPinMaryland]

It's you make the call, OVerlay. I am strictly neutral. ;)

Dick: it almost certainly survived birth, it certainly is not in the embryo stage and the bones appear to be somewhat mature. Moreover, as the article points out this phenomenon is actually not super rare among certain reptiles and lizards. You could probably google some these e.g. snakes held in zoos and the like. Sounds odd, because in mammals this sort of thing is very rare and mostly leads to a bad life/survival rate but in snakes, no.

[Overlay]

I wonder if any of the known examples of two-headed reptiles or lizards have been documented as passing that characteristic on to their offspring, or whether all known cases of "two-headedness" have been the offspring of normal parents. I would also be curious as to what associated effect (if any) this condition has on the animal's fertility/ability to reproduce.

[Dave Schwartz]

How 'bout the female Komodo Dragons that are becoming unwed mothers? (without the benefit of a dad?)


http://www.boingboing.net/2006/12/20/virgin_komodo_dragon.html

[Overlay]

How 'bout the female Komodo Dragons that are becoming unwed mothers? (without the benefit of a dad?)


http://www.boingboing.net/2006/12/20/virgin_komodo_dragon.html

Dave:

That's also in a separate thread.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33271

[Overlay]

So if it wasn't evolution in action (it died as a newborn or even before birth) then the answer to why it exists is that God screwed up? Not much intelligence in this design.


Dick

God huh? My imaginary friend's name is Bobo.


Taking another line of argument, what if the reason the specimen looked like that was the intent of the designer (called whatever you wish) to cause its demise by poorly adapting it to its environment, for the overall benefit of other species with which it coexisted?

[Dave Schwartz]

Thanks, Overlay.

And Merry Christmas to you and yours.


Dave

[Show Me the Wire]

Would there have to be a missing link? Couldn't it just be an isolated mutation or birth defect rather than any indication of a new species, or of any significance from an evolutionary perspective? Or am I missing your point?

What our board buddy is referring to is the population theory. Under this theory there is no missing link, a new small population shows up (two-headed reptile) and crowds out the original population evolving the species without leaving a trace of the link. In this case it did not work, so it must have been freak mutation in the original population.

[Overlay]

Dave:

Merry Christmas to you (and all board members), as well.

Tim

[JPinMaryland]

IT doesnt have to be a mutation, which is based I think on some sort of change in the genetic material and would produce one freak of nature. Rather I think this sort of thing here has do with something in the environment of the fetus that turned on a gene or some process in the development that led to this. It is by this sort of action that a new species could develop overnight, not from a single individual (mutation theory) but rather a whole new generation springs up overnight.

The idea of the environment turning on a particular gene or process is illustrated by the other story I linked to in the Virgin Dragon story. That other story having to do with the ratio of males to females varying as the temperature change. Somehow the temp. change means Y-type sperm make it through the birth canal instead of X. Something like that. So environmental changes can play a key part in this. Hormone levels have been shown to affect how fetal tissue develops into male and female parts..

As for the environmental theory. I like it because it explains why there are no "missing links" that will ever be found. They arent there. ANother example of this is a story a couple of years back involving frogs. Frogs in ponds all over the northern parts were developing two heads or something. Obviously something happened to the environment, either a temp. change or a chemical polluant or something. To have thousands of frogs all haveing the same mutation at the same time is inconceivable. What makes sense is that some environmental factor hit them at the same time.

[JPinMaryland]

HEre is a story from ten years ago on the deformed frogs. If you scroll down about 3/4 of the way, he says that it is not a mutation but rather some problem in the developmental stage, since this story was reported they have found deformed frogs in like 44 states and Canada thousands of em:

http://blumberg-serv.bio.uci.edu/souder/ws-961230.htm

[JPinMaryland]

Here is a more recent article where Scientific American begins to unravel the mystery. You can read it for yourself and as you read it, think about some of the theories being advanced. If it was something like pollution why would it be hitting the frog population at the same time all over the continent? Wouldnt pollutants have been in certain locales all along? but the frogs seem to be mutating suddenly all over the world. It has to be some factor that is suddenly rising or appearing all at once..

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D5DCC-CA4A-1E1C-8B3B809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2

[JPinMaryland]

In this case it did not work, so it must have been freak mutation in the original population.


this is a very confused statement you make here. Whether a changed or freakish animal "works" or "does not work" has nothing to do with whether it was a caused by a mutation or something else.

What ultimately happens to an animal does not tell us the genesis of it.

[JustRalph]

HEre is a story from ten years ago on the deformed frogs. If you scroll down about 3/4 of the way, he says that it is not a mutation but rather some problem in the developmental stage, since this story was reported they have found deformed frogs in like 44 states and Canada thousands of em:

http://blumberg-serv.bio.uci.edu/souder/ws-961230.htm

Damn, none in France?

[Bala]

O' man. I take a few days off and the atheists come out to play....

What is the chose here JP, one or the other – evolution of creation? Is that it? Are their no other possible explanation? Even Darwinian biology must bow on the alter of physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics).

The two most important rules {laws} in classical and quantum mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics) are:

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. {first law}
All things, unless intervened, decay to the point of chaos. {second law}
The fossil examples sited in this tread de-evolved out of existence!!! From a physical point of view all things de-evolve out of existence. {including you and me.}

This whole universe is moving to a state of chaos. Something called expansion (http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo3.html). In 10-15 billion years from now, the universe will become extinct. {Big Bang Cosmology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang)}

Unless of course, something outside this known universe intervenes. The dinosaurs would have died anyway, even if their was no climatological catastrophe. {all those SUV's 200 million (http://www.amazon.com/End-Evolution-Peter-Ward/dp/0553374699/sr=1-1/qid=1166937455/ref=pd_bbs_1/105-3107525-9468412?ie=UTF8&s=books) years ago contributed to the greenhouse effect???}

There have been 3 major extinction and at least 6 minor extinction in the past 300 million years. Life moved on despite violating the second law of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics).


_______________________________

To one and all - have a merry christmas!

[Turntime]

The Earth is not a closed system, but part of the solar system. Life moves forward because it gets it's energy from the sun. Entropy in the solar system is increasing, therefore the second law of thermodynamics is safe.

Merry Christmas everyone.

[Tom]

I thought that was just Superman? ;)

[JPinMaryland]

There are no wrong answers, Bala. Think of it as a left wing classroom.

[Bala]

Entropy in the solar system is increasing; therefore the second law of thermodynamics is safe. I was not implying anything else. The natural order of things is a constant move toward disorder, decay and chaos.



Life moves forward because it gets its energy from the sun The fire ball we call the sun will eventually burn up all the hydrogen and helium and decay. In a couple billion years our entire solar system will go the way of the dinosaurs. Our solar system consisting of eight {8} planets plus Pluto (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060825003742.htm) and Eris (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060914155305.htm). Yes I know that adds up to ten {10} planets but all hell has broken out in Astronomy as to the definition (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060816082231.htm) of a planet.



The Earth is not a closed system, but part of the solar system Irrelevant. The entire Milky Way galaxy will decay. Let’s take this one step further, is our Universe an open or closed system? Big Bang cosmology predicts the death of our Universe in about 12 billion years. All things gravitate perpetually and inexorably toward disorder.

When scientists come across an inconvenient truth {I mean fact} that does not fit the current paradigm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm) – this fact is labeled a paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox). There are so many paradoxes in cosmology >> there are incredible “theories” attempting to explain these anomalous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous_phenomenon) facts. Something cannot come from nothing. Nothing ever could. No matter, astrophysicists have concluded our universe is part of a multiverse. Universes continuously are “born” “live” and decay. Making way for other universes. In order for this to happen we need to live in an eleven {11} dimensional multiverse. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory).

Getting back to the original question posted in this thread: “Is it evolution or Intelligent design?” I submit it takes more faith to believe in the above fantasy then to believe in an ultimate intelligence. {God}

When I look at the fossil record I cannot find any type of Darwinian evolution. What I see is death, disease and extinction. The fossil record is a log book of past extinctions not transition from one species to the next. Life cannot arise from non life! In order for one thing to transition to another new and in some cases unique information (http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/info-theory/course.html) must be added. From all observable methods, mutations cause the organism to rapidly decay.


Let me try an analogy.

In this forum is ace handicapper and virtuoso programmer Dave Schwartz who just completed HSH 4.0 (http://horsestreet.com/)

Believing in Darwinian evolution is akin to believing Dave sits on his rump all day doing nothing and somehow thru random chance and time accidentally authored his all encompassing handicapping software. Or perhaps, Dave went to the zoo, borrowed a couple hundred chimpanzees and by sheer luck coded HSH 4. Preposterous!!

An intelligent agent {Dave} conceived and designed his baby not by chance but buy hard work. To believe otherwise is fantasy.




______________________
NY Giants suck dog vomit.
Go Jets.

[betchatoo]

[font=Verdana]Let me try an analogy.

In this forum is ace handicapper and virtuoso programmer Dave Schwartz who just completed HSH 4.0 (http://horsestreet.com/)

Believing in Darwinian evolution is akin to believing Dave sits on his rump all day doing nothing and somehow thru random chance and time accidentally authored his all encompassing handicapping software. Or perhaps, Dave went to the zoo, borrowed a couple hundred chimpanzees and by sheer luck coded HSH 4. Preposterous!!

An intelligent agent {Dave} conceived and designed his baby not by chance but buy hard work. To believe otherwise is fantasy.

Go Jets.


If Dave had created something with as many quirks and hard to use features as the universe, no one would buy it

[JPinMaryland]

YEs, it is a good thing we are not grading these...

[hcap]

Bala,

I appreciate your frustration with chaos. It's just that I don't think we who are living within a specific local "bubble" of existence can extrapolate all the way out to the entire ball of wax. Using scientific analysis to discover a priori fundamentals may be a flawed approach. The big bang or a Hoyles' steady state theory are just imperfect repesentations of a cosmology that can only guess about beginnings and endings. There is no real comprehension scientifically of what came before or what will come after. Nor can there be.

"A priori” and “a posteriori” refer primarily to how, or on what basis, a proposition might be known. In general terms, a proposition is knowable a priori if it is knowable independently of experience, while a proposition knowable a posteriori is knowable on the basis of experience. The distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge thus broadly corresponds to the distinction between empirical and nonempirical knowledge."

And although I agree that the Universe has certain laws that we understand and can apply and test empiricly in our local time and space, trying to extend thermodynamics into the ultimate may be just another example of the limitations of what we can truly know. What are the thermodynamics of before or after? No scientific laws apply, and only can be used one instant after existence or one instant before it ends. The rest of the picture is off limits.

We do know that life appears to flourish seemingly in contradiction to most things naturally decaying. But as Turntime said "Entropy in the solar system is increasing; therefore the second law of thermodynamics is safe". This is true.

To say it is irrelevant because ultimately the second law predicts the "heat death" of the larger system that contains the solar system-the universe-is a contradiction of your basic contention.

It is extemely relevant. It would seem that life arose locally in spite of the much larger race to the bottom of the universe in general And it arose according to well established locally operating laws. The larger system is not knowable based on thermodynamics. And in fact if you contend it is, and some constructive force that brings order from chaos is in charge, why would the death of the universe occur at all? The ultimate disorder. For you to use the heat death as support for life locally requires some mental gymnastics.
I'm sure we can postulate all sorts of reasons for what God does and will do, but in doing so you only complicate your position. Ultimitly it is our projection using our intellect. A limited instrument that runs out of gas up against these larger issues.

Many religous traditions attempt to reconcile creative forces with destructive disorder. Some assume co existing forces at work. The buddhist ying and yang for example. The hindu tamas and rajas. Included in these concepts is the interaction between the two, giving rise to a third integrated force. It is hard enough understanding how this occurs in mundane events. Let alone the entire ball of wax.

Zen buddhism for example would scoff at the attempt to as they say to " pour new wine into old wineskins" So the solution might be to acquire some new techniques in understanding. In Zen 20 or 30 years of sitting zazen might just do that.

[JPinMaryland]

I submit it takes more faith to believe in the above fantasy then to believe in an ultimate intelligence...

But you are not against faith are you? YOu seem to have contradicted yourself again on this issue. In the other thread you pretty much said the same thing, criticizing science as faith based while justifying your own faith..

[Show Me the Wire]

But you are not against faith are you? YOu seem to have contradicted yourself again on this issue. In the other thread you pretty much said the same thing, criticizing science as faith based while justifying your own faith..

JPinMaryland:

Science as faith based is a problem. Science is empiracal, based on provable facts.

You see the Theory of evolution as it exists now is faith based and not grounded in "Empirical evidence" making it big problematic how evolutionists present the THEORY. It is presented as fact supported through provable facts, while it is grounded in faith based belief. Clothing THEORY of evoultion as science is a lie.

Bala's problem is not with faith, but with the false presentation of faith as science.

[hcap]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/

Project Steve
Humorous Testing of the Scientific Attitudes Toward "Intelligent Design"
Via Scientists Named "Steve"

Evolution is well accepted as science NOT faith. By those in the field.
Overwhelmingly

Who's to say a creator did not establish the laws of science-including random mutation and natural selection-to gernerate the life forms all around us? Without direct intervention. A more subtle creation perhaps?

A guiding hand may be at work behind natural law without a measurable test. There may not be a conflict between religion and science after all.

[Show Me the Wire]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/

Project Steve
Humorous Testing of the Scientific Attitudes Toward "Intelligent Design"
Via Scientists Named "Steve"

Evolution is well accepted as science NOT faith. By those in the field.
Overwhelmingly

Who's to say a creator did not establish the laws of science-including random mutation and natural selection-to gernerate the life forms all around us? Without direct intervention. A more subtle creation perhaps?

A guiding hand may be at work behind natural law without a measurable test. There may not be a conflict between religion and science after all.

Of course the Theory of evolution is accepted as science by people in the field. What would you expect?

Fact, the Theory fails the litmus test to be science. Evolution, as apllied to origins, at this time is not provable through empirical evidence.

The conflict revolves around deceit by the Evolutionists portraying evolution, as applied to origin, as provable scientific fact.

[JPinMaryland]

Something is being confused here:



Fact, the Theory fails the litmus test to be science.

What is the "litmus test" for science? Can you give an example of a theory that passes your litmus test that evolution does not? Id really like to see ane example of that..


Evolution, as apllied to origins, at this time is not provable through empirical evidence.

Nothing is really "provable" through evidence. All that can be said is that the data that we have "support" the theory, i.e. the data does not contradict the theory.

Given this state of affairs for any theory, then what exactly are you saying? I guess any theory of science would fall under your notion that they are not proved.

So they are not proved? So what?



The conflict revolves around deceit by the Evolutionists portraying evolution, as applied to origin, as provable scientific fact.

Like who is saying this?? Show an example..

[Pace Cap'n]

Show an example..

The Flying Squirrel.

[Tom]

Of course the Theory of evolution is accepted as science by people in the field. What would you expect?




Don't you just love that low hanging fruit? :lol:


And Flying Squirrel? Brilliant! :D

[Ponyplayr]

What about the Eve Gene..does this not prove we all descended from one female?

[Show Me the Wire]

JPinMARYLAND:

Research what constitutes the scientific method and you will understand the litmus test of empirical evidence. Also, neither of us can prove a negative.

[JPinMaryland]

I'm not doing research for me or you. Do you have an answer or dont you?

[JPinMaryland]

What about the Eve Gene..does this not prove we all descended from one female?

The latest I heard is that even the people at UCLA (IIRC) Rebecca Cann et al. have to concede that there would not be one single mother. The origin of the species would be a so called "bottleneck population" of something like 50-200 or more individuals.

Which of course throws water on the whole theory, the way I see it. But they apparently dont. Why they persist in this is beyond me.

A key factor in the theory is the use of mitochondrial DNA which supposedly mutates at a constant rate and which also supposedly has nothing to do with gene expression, it is sort of in the background, w/ no real biological purpose but may be used as a "clock" to determine how long we've been around or how long we've been mutating....

I find the whole idea off the wall. Not because it relies on the two things above but because the idea that a population with greater diversity will be an older population is not well thought out.

Supposedly we are from Africa because the genetic pool is more diverse there. But Africa also has people distributed over a vast terrain. A terrain that is quite varied from cold mountains to hot deserts to jungles. Why isnt it that simply the populated regions are vaster than europe or Asia?

"No" say the out of Africa people, the m-DNA is a clock that tells us the older population is from there because the m DNA is more diverse from there.

It's not a well grounded idea. Take an asia population suppose it is genetically less diverse than say Africa. But it could be less diverse because a lot of people were wiped out by flood, or famine or whatever.

It's like going into to my house and concluding that I've been living in my bedroom longest simply because my socks are more dishelved there. What if I straightened up my living room only a few hours before you arrived?

The theory makes no account for this that Im aware of.

[Show Me the Wire]

I'm not doing research for me or you. Do you have an answer or dont you?

The answer was in my prior posts. If you didn't understand it, than you need to educate yourself about the scientific method and the necessity of empirical evidence.

[Show Me the Wire]

JPinMaryland:

About mDNA two important facts you are ignoring:

1. Only inherited only from the mother, which allows tracing of a direct genetic line.

2. They don't recombine. Recombination in nuclear DNA mixes sections of DNA from the mother and the father creating a garbled genetic history.

Since the genetic history is not garbled the maternal direct genetic line can be traced.

Seems the ancient Jewish culture understood genetics as they looked to the mother's lineage, as the controlling factor, in determining whether or not a child was born into the Jewish nation. I wonder how an ancient culture gained such insight.

[Bala]

hcap - I do appreciate your well reasoned post. However, I think you make to many assumptions.


What are the thermodynamics of before or after? I can only speak to the now. I do not assume a “before' or “after.” To do so invites to much speculation. Unfortunately, the current state of physics is in a perpetual state of confusion.


The whole debate over dark matter and dark energy which constitutes eighty {80} percent of the universe is impossibly incoherent. Human ideas are always in a state of flux. This is why I do not attach to heavy a weight to currently accepted theories. Theories that may prove to be wrong.


We do know that life appears to flourish seemingly in contradiction to most things naturally decaying. But as Turntime said "Entropy in the solar system is increasing; therefore the second law of thermodynamics is safe." Why do you both dismiss this paradox so cavalierly? If you have a solution even if speculation, I would like to hear it.


To say it is irrelevant because ultimately the second law predicts the "heat death" of the larger system that contains the solar system-the universe-is a contradiction of your basic contention. This is a standard response from the scientific community. What exactly does it mean “heat loss” in practical terms? In the best current scientific models of nature: electrons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron)revolve around a nucleus of an atom (http://www.howstuffworks.com/atom.htm). This motion is what generates all known matter. E=MC Squared (http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/EmcFallacies.html). Since all atoms decay, the whole universe is moving toward disorder. Open or closed systems are irrelevant. All things decay period.


Best current estimates place this universe approximately at 16 billion years old. Why is there anything at all in this bubble?


I appreciate your frustration with chaos...... Not me. It is what passes for empirical science that must resolve the contradictions inherent to evolutionary cosmology and Darwinian evolution.

Ultimately it is our projection using our intellect. A limited instrument that runs out of gas up against these larger issues. Science has proven many concepts. Evolution is not one of them.

..... science as faith based while justifying your own faith.... Post # 26 - Show Me the Wire, is straight to the point. I use the fruits of modern science everyday. I love technological and medical innovators. It has made our lives easer. Others have said evolution is accepted by a wide margin of scientists. Am I to infer science if infallible?

During the Egyptian Empire, it was widely accepted mountain tops kept the sky in place. In our modern day equivalent, evolution pretends to explain life. In my opinion, only the arrogant assume life can come from non life.

BTW: we have yet to discover how the Egyptians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt) built those great pyramids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramids)at Giza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza). Yup, must have been random chance!


_________________________________________________


speaking of random events - Seven Wonders of the World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Wonders_of_the_World)

[JPinMaryland]

Seems the ancient Jewish culture understood genetics as they looked to the mother's lineage, as the controlling factor, in determining whether or not a child was born into the Jewish nation. I wonder how an ancient culture gained such insight.

They had a 50-50 chance of getting it right..

[Show Me the Wire]

They had a 50-50 chance of getting it right..
:D True.

My patently unclear point is the majority of the cultures, if not all of the rest, went by the sire line.

[Bala]

All this talk of chaos theory, entropy, disorder, can be a little bewildering.

A good tutorial for the lay person in Window Media audio format:
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=17851
Just press play. One hour long.

Dr. Michio Kaku (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku) interviews Dr. Brian Green (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Greene). To distinguished physicists with extensive post doctorate work discuss Heisenberg (http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/)'s uncertainty principle and multi dimensions.

For all you Star Trek/Star Wars fans, may find the universe {mutiverse?}
stranger then fiction.

[JPinMaryland]

BTW: we have yet to discover how the Egyptians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt) built those great pyramids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramids)at Giza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza). Yup, must have been random chance![/size][/font]





Actually a french scientist figured this out about 20 years ago. They did it the only plausible way, they created a primitive type of cement mix and then molded it w/ wooden molds. How else could each rock be of such precise size and sharp cut that they fit into each other?

There are references in the bible to building bricks w/o straw and it seems that these bricks in the pyramids are probably being referred to.

I remember the Chariots of the Gods books claiming that these pyramids would take so much time to create using modern day technology....

But not if you cheat and use a mix...

[Bala]

JP – this cannot be.

Are you actually saying there is hard evidence for intelligent design in those pyramids.

And in the same breath -- something infinitely more complex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity) {LIFE} happened by random Darwinian processes?

How can you be so oblivious to the logical disconnect????? The fossil record is an utter embarrassment to evolution.


Another point I'd like to bring up is how evolutionists constantly have to change their arguments as their old theories get disproved. Facts don't change. Creationist have used the same Bible ever since it was written. For example evolutionists get so excited whenever they discover a new "missing link" that they call it such before knowing much about it. They assume that something is true before they prove it, that's not good science. One example is a pig's tooth being mistaken for a "missing link". Now if you don't have enough evidence to even tell a pig's tooth from the tooth of an ape-man, then you have no business putting that in text books and proclaiming it as fact.

Yet another example: the famed "Lucy (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/human/human_evolution/mother_of_man1.shtml)" was conclusively determined to be nothing more than a Giant Gibbon.

How does cromagnum man whose brain was 20% larger than ours fit into Darwinian evolution?


__________________________
A bit of soul in a bag of bones.

[JPinMaryland]

Yet another example: the famed "Lucy (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/human/human_evolution/mother_of_man1.shtml)" was conclusively determined to be nothing more than a Giant Gibbon.



.


Umm, I think you are confusing that with the Piltdown Man hoax, that was created in Britain back in the late 19th cent. I guess and fooled most of the top British anthropologists for quite some time. They used an old ape and shaved down some of it's teeth. THe filing marks on the teeth were eventually one of the give aways.

I have no idea about Lucy being confused with an ape, I think you are badly mistake in this but if you can find a ref. somewhere I'd like to see that.

[JPinMaryland]

tihs site has some info on the egyptian pyramids cast out of cement, you have to click on the links, start with the third entry, et al.:

http://www.geopolymer.org/category/archaeology/


this company I guess sells concrete that is based on the egyptian formulation, I guess Prof Davidowitz figured it out but there is another ref to a French guy in 1982 who figured it:

http://www.siloxo.com/technology.htm

[so.cal.fan]

Aren't creation and evolution the same? :confused:

[JPinMaryland]

Another point I'd like to bring up is how evolutionists constantly have to change their arguments as their old theories get disproved. .

Indeed, if only politicians and theologians could...

[JPinMaryland]

Aren't creation and evolution the same? :confused:


Same product, but payments are made to different entities.

[DaveP]

Evolution is as proposterous as Religion .. unless you've got some sort of phoney agenda to screw everybody over.

[kenwoodallpromos]

God kickstarted evolution. Men are the ones who get cavemen to advertise insurance.

[JPinMaryland]

careful Ken, this borders on caveman slander and they are very litigious.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Man turns evolution around, makes "Planet of the Apes" and "Jurassic Park" hit movies. Nowadays religious leaders like Haggert and Swaggert and the Episcopals are politically correct.

[JPinMaryland]

I dont think Planet of the Apes changed anything about the basic evolution theory. In the movie version at least in movies 3 and 4 the idea was that dogs and cats died and apes were adopted, they learned to speak and eventually revolted. Not really changing evolution.

The idea of the dogs and cats dying etc. does create some problems with movies 1 and 2, Planet of the Apes and Beneath Planet of the Apes. Namely that there has to be an alternate time line because Dr. Zira and COrnelius have not yet returned to earth (theyve come back from the future) in order to provide the ape that speaks. ANd in movie 1/2 Cornelius and Zira live in an ape society that apparently arose without this revolt. So maybe there is a problem there.

In the actual book, Monkey Planet, I dont think that is what happened at all. The apes actually drove cars and flew planes in the book and I think they actually lived on a different planet entirely. So maybe there is an evolution problem there.

They could not have them fly planes in the movies as the budget for the make up alone nearly killed the picture ($2M out of a total of $10 was spent on costume and makeup in movie 1, a record at the time). Same reason that movie 3 et al. had them back on earth, they saved a lot of money on monkey outfits.

Anyhow, I really like Planet of the APes and think maybe it is the best sci fi movie ever. But lots of people like Star Wars. I think I like the characters in the Apes more..