A challenge for fellowhips, trumptman, and ena (and BTW, I thought ena you had been banned for getting hysterical in one of these evolution threads before),:
What are the basic observations about the world that evolution has explained? Can you briefly summarize them - can you make the other side's case? That would be the first step toward throwing over the theory, it seems to me.
Oh goodness. I typed this up and it was several pages long, but that reply alas is gone along with fsc.
Because I have to actually work again, you are going to get the ultrashort version. Assume that lack of detail does not mean lack of understanding but intrusion of real life. In otherwords this is straight out of the noggin with no looking up of finer points.
Evolution: The theory that attempts to explain the origin, differentiation, and continuation of all life on our and likely other planets.
Evolutionary origins: Experiments have shows that the likely condition of early earth allowed for ample production of amino acids. Likewise various meteorites that have landed on earth have chains of left-handed RNA of varying lengths on them.
It has been hypothesized that the amino acids happened to string along together long enough to form the first basic cell that became self replicating. As that cell replicated it essentually began the very long process of creating all life on earth through the various mechanisims that evolution employs including natural selection, genetic drift and mutation.
As this process occured it created the great variety of life on earth through gradual modification using the afore mentioned processes. By gradual I mean that change between generations and not necessarily the straight passage of time.
And so on and so on... speciation, asexual , sexual, etc. until we arrive with all of us arguing on this thread.
I have a brother-in-law who just got his PhD in botany from Michigan. He does taxonomy - classifying plants according to genetic similarity. Want to know whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable? He's the one to ask. Now there is just no way he could do what he does without thinking in terms of evolution. Does he have an atheist agenda? Absolutely not. He just likes plants. But thinking in terms of how plants have changed over time through genetic mutations and natural selection is a necessity. It's the framework that guides everything he does, and everything falls together as a result of that framework.
Brussell I do not question natural selection. Natural selection and macro-evolution are not one and the same. When you say above:
Quote:
Now there is just no way he could do what he does without thinking in terms of evolution.
I have to question if you really believe that statement. I think it would be a bit limited and narrow to exclude other findings than the loose framework that would imlply Macro-evolution amoungst the evolutionists.
Natural selection = fact
micro-evolution = fact
macro-evolution = a theory that is just that. A theory.
Once again fellowship ignores all questions put to him.
Hardly surprising, as he has no answers.
What would you like to ask me?
News flash you are 1/2 correct while saying I don't have the answers. I don't claim to know everything and never have but if there is something you would like to ask me go ahead.
News flash you are 1/2 correct while saying I don't have the answers. I don't claim to know everything and never have but if there is something you would like to ask me go ahead.
Fellowship
I want you to post your "creationist theory of everything".
I want you to post the creationist theory that explains our origins, without using evolution.
I want you to explain "all the evidence" (or as much as current evolutionary theory explains) using creationist arguments, without resorting to the "god did it" gambit. You must use scientific principles. I want you to explain how said theory can be verified, or disproven.
I want you to show where evolution says "this is how we were created".
I want you to explain how criticism of evolution discredits it - in exactly the same scientific sense that criticism of classical physics should discredit classical physics.
Brussell I do not question natural selection. Natural selection and macro-evolution are not one and the same. When you say above:
I have to question if you really believe that statement. I think it would be a bit limited and narrow to exclude other findings than the loose framework that would imlply Macro-evolution amoungst the evolutionists.
Natural selection = fact
micro-evolution = fact
macro-evolution = a theory that is just that. A theory.
And for your information it is not conclusive.
Fellowship
If by macroevolution you mean the differentiation of species, that is exactly what is important in his field. He examines different species (as well as higher-order classifications) of plants. In order to understand the relationships among them, he has to understand their common ancestors and how they have differentiated into different categories over time. He couldn't do what he does - group plants together - without macroevolution as a guiding framework.
The example with plants is good I think because it leaves behind some of the baggage involved with the evolution of humans. Why is it hard to believe that plants have changed over time in response to environmental pressures? And that these changes over a long period of time produce extremely different types of plants (i.e., macroevolution)? And that one can examine the plants and their genetics and their historical environment and the fossils they have left behind to trace the lineage, and determine where different categories have branched out? And if you can buy that, why can't you buy it with other living things?
I want you to post your "creationist theory of everything".
I want you to post the creationist theory that explains our origins, without using evolution.
I want you to explain "all the evidence" (or as much as current evolutionary theory explains) using creationist arguments, without resorting to the "god did it" gambit. You must use scientific principles. I want you to explain how said theory can be verified, or disproven.
I want you to show where evolution says "this is how we were created".
I want you to explain how criticism of evolution discredits it - in exactly the same scientific sense that criticism of classical physics should discredit classical physics.
That should be easy enough.
Greetings xenu,
I can not explain origins. I don't think a single human being on the planet can with authority. I will not pretend to know.
I do believe God created creation as it is said in Genesis. The way and means are up in the air. I am simply saying as I did a year ago in my thread that 16 18 some odd pages of discussion that I do not buy evolution as it is presented.
I respect the right of all people to hold their views. I do take issue with false data that has been presented in the past that was used solely to deceive researchers and students.
I welcome debate over the issue of origins in the classroom I see no reason why questions can not be asked of a theory.
I believe this for any non-conclusive theory out there.
I was going for sarcasm. Then again, sarcasm usually tends to be condescending, so you're right about that.
Quote:
Where is the logic in your arguement? A belief in the "supernatural" does not preclude logic; if so, you would have to dismiss most of the "great" thinkers in history.
So how does a person convince another person who believes in the supernatural that they are wrong? You cannot come up with a proof that a belief in this are that theology is wrong since said beliefs are based on supernatural events and on faith that those supernatural events are true. You therefore cannot convince them of logic.
Really, what is the point of dicussing this sort of topic?
Quote:
This is total nonsense. Part A, "To speak of the beginnings . . ." does not lead to B "one is fantasizing." What that has to do with not knowing beats me. How you get from "theological" to a "conflation of politics and science" also eludes me. Science is a tool and when used properly does not encroach on true religion. And science has not been "trumping religious dogma" for thousands of years, especially since it hasn't been around as such that long.
Why is trumptman asking the question about evolution? Why is the ciriticism of evolution education being led by theologists? It really isn't about evolution.
Science has its own builtin mechanisms against dogma. If there is something wrong with some science theory, it will eventually be superceded by something better. Evolution will be continually refined as more data arrives and research is done.
Politics is a sociologic discourse. It's a way to control society and culture. Movements to discredit evolution is a political act. Evolution is a scientific theory. So why are they being mixed together? Why do laws have to be passed to force people to teach evolution or not?
When you talking about speaking about beginnings being theological, always theological, I see it as conflating the two issues, science and religion, when there really is no link. If some physicists are studying parallel universe cosmology, they are really speaking in theological terms? No. I don't think so. So why are you saying it in such a way?
Yes, science has been changing religious dogma for thousands of years.
I can not explain origins. I don't think a single human being on the planet can with authority. I will not pretend to know.
I do believe God created creation as it is said in Genesis. The way and means are up in the air. I am simply saying as I did a year ago in my thread that 16 18 some odd pages of discussion that I do not buy evolution as it is presented.
I respect the right of all people to hold their views. I do take issue with false data that has been presented in the past that was used solely to deceive researchers and students.
I welcome debate over the issue of origins in the classroom I see no reason why questions can not be asked of a theory.
I believe this for any non-conclusive theory out there.
Fellowship
So creationists don't have any theories about our origins.
You have nothing more than a religious faith, which you want to put into school science classes.
The fact thet you do not buy evolution says nothing about evolution. It is your personal belief, and I respect that.
I will not respect having a religious belief - creationism - in the science class.
Do you also take issue with false arguments? Like taking scientists quotes out of context? Or the site fangorn posted which consists of primary school sillyness?
Unfortunately for you, evolution is a very successful theory.
Does it explain everything? No. Should it? No. Science doesn't work that way.
Real scientists do argue evolution. Such arguments will eventually make their way into the school room - in exactly the same way that students are taught about the 'ultraviolet catastrophe' and Einstien's theory of photons. This doesn't discredit classical physics, by the way. It simply led to a better theory - just like will happen with the current theory of evolution.
A quick look suggests these are nothing more than personal opinions.
No "scientific theories" are supplied. Just some very fanciful assumptions. Something creationist accuse "evolutionists" of doing.
All well and good, no doubt, if you are a sheep.
xenu we are all sheep to a degree. I just happen to believe we should let students ask questions. If at the end of the day a given student finds evolution as the truth great, if they find a different path as being truth great as well.
Again we are discussing theories that are non-conclusive.
Uh, yeah, harassment. Hey, if I'm wrong, sobeit. Let's just say your online... demeanor... reminds me of another person who was banned a while ago. Funny how our personalities come through so strongly over this medium. Maybe alcimedes will check for me just for laughs.
Sounds great pal, I've always wanted my very own internet stalker.
xenu we are all sheep to a degree. I just happen to believe we should let students ask questions. If at the end of the day a given student finds evolution as the truth great, if they find a different path as being truth great as well.
Again we are discussing theories that are non-conclusive.
Fellowship
Students do ask. In science class, you teach science. As far as our origins go, that means the theory of evolution.
Your personal opinion has no bearing on this. Since you cannot supply an alternative to evolution, it continues to be taught.
If one of these students decides to go on to do a PhD, and overturns the theory, supplying a new one, great. I look forward to reading about it. This doesn't discredit evolution.
Every theory is non-conclusive. That's a meaningless statement.
Students do ask. In science class, you teach science. As far as our origins go, that means the theory of evolution.
Your personal opinion has no bearing on this. Since you cannot supply an alternative to evolution, it continues to be taught.
If one of these students decides to go on to do a PhD, and overturns the theory, supplying a new one, great. I look forward to reading about it. This doesn't discredit evolution.
Every theory is non-conclusive. That's a meaningless statement.
Hold on a second. Are you saying while there is one given theory over origins another can not be pursued?
I would sure hope not.
You are welcome to also check out This Site and tell me what you find fault with concerning the arguments presented.
So, if we can get a round about idea of how evolution is failing we can decide if it's worthwhile to mandate (or at least encourage) criticism.
The problem is that evolution never worked in the first place. It makes positive statements and NEVER owns up to the implications. Information-adding mutations do not occur in nature. It's just that simple. We have speciation aplenty, but the information comes from existing structure.
Evolution is not treated as a theory when approaching paleontology et al, it is treated as holy gospel and the ONLY starting point (remember its just a theory). And we go downhill from there.
It's not science, it is a sick joke that is feeding on itself.
Any evolutionists care to comment on the following?
Quote:
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) - 150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.
Ramapithecus - once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realized that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape).
Eoanthropus (Piltdown man) - a hoax based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years.
Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man) - based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only living in Paraguay.
Pithecanthropus (Java man) - now renamed to Homo erectus. See below.
Australopithecus africanus - this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like.
Sinanthropus (Peking man) was once presented as an ape-man but has now been reclassified as Homo erectus (see below).
Currently fashionable ape-men
These are the ones that adorn the evolutionary trees of today that supposedly led to Homo sapiens from a chimpanzee-like creature.
Australopithecus - there are various species of these that have been at times proclaimed as human ancestors. One remains: Australopithecus afarensis, popularly known as the fossil 'Lucy'. However, detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that 'Lucy' and her like are not on the way to becoming human. For example, they may have walked more upright than most apes, but not in the human manner. Australopithecus afarensis is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee.
Homo habilis - there is a growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of various other types - such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is therefore an 'invalid taxon'. That is, it never existed as such.
Homo erectus - many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
A challenge for fellowhips, trumptman, and ena (and BTW, I thought ena you had been banned for getting hysterical in one of these evolution threads before),:
What are the basic observations about the world that evolution has explained? Can you briefly summarize them - can you make the other side's case? That would be the first step toward throwing over the theory, it seems to me.
Oh goodness. I typed this up and it was several pages long, but that reply alas is gone along with fsc.
Because I have to actually work again, you are going to get the ultrashort version. Assume that lack of detail does not mean lack of understanding but intrusion of real life. In otherwords this is straight out of the noggin with no looking up of finer points.
Evolution: The theory that attempts to explain the origin, differentiation, and continuation of all life on our and likely other planets.
Evolutionary origins: Experiments have shows that the likely condition of early earth allowed for ample production of amino acids. Likewise various meteorites that have landed on earth have chains of left-handed RNA of varying lengths on them.
It has been hypothesized that the amino acids happened to string along together long enough to form the first basic cell that became self replicating. As that cell replicated it essentually began the very long process of creating all life on earth through the various mechanisims that evolution employs including natural selection, genetic drift and mutation.
As this process occured it created the great variety of life on earth through gradual modification using the afore mentioned processes. By gradual I mean that change between generations and not necessarily the straight passage of time.
And so on and so on... speciation, asexual , sexual, etc. until we arrive with all of us arguing on this thread.
Hope that was brief and to the point enough,
Nick
Hardly surprising, as he has no answers.
fangorn, thanks for the link.
1. The Philip Bell article.
There was no global flood, so his assumptions are baseless.
He doesn't like 'evolutionists' reconstructing past events, but does so himself. Typical creationist hypocrisy.
I would read more, but my eyes glazed over.
2. I couldn't find anything by Don Batten that wasn't creationist, so I guess he isn't an 'authority' on evolution.
His article was highly amusing though.
What a shame I have a life, otherwise I would continue reading.
Once again, creationist have no answers. Unless it's to the question of why cars look the same - they have the same creator! Brilliant!
Originally posted by BRussell
I have a brother-in-law who just got his PhD in botany from Michigan. He does taxonomy - classifying plants according to genetic similarity. Want to know whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable? He's the one to ask. Now there is just no way he could do what he does without thinking in terms of evolution. Does he have an atheist agenda? Absolutely not. He just likes plants. But thinking in terms of how plants have changed over time through genetic mutations and natural selection is a necessity. It's the framework that guides everything he does, and everything falls together as a result of that framework.
Brussell I do not question natural selection. Natural selection and macro-evolution are not one and the same. When you say above:
Now there is just no way he could do what he does without thinking in terms of evolution.
I have to question if you really believe that statement. I think it would be a bit limited and narrow to exclude other findings than the loose framework that would imlply Macro-evolution amoungst the evolutionists.
Natural selection = fact
micro-evolution = fact
macro-evolution = a theory that is just that. A theory.
And for your information it is not conclusive.
Fellowship
Originally posted by xenu
Once again fellowship ignores all questions put to him.
Hardly surprising, as he has no answers.
What would you like to ask me?
News flash you are 1/2 correct while saying I don't have the answers. I don't claim to know everything and never have but if there is something you would like to ask me go ahead.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
What would you like to ask me?
News flash you are 1/2 correct while saying I don't have the answers. I don't claim to know everything and never have but if there is something you would like to ask me go ahead.
Fellowship
I want you to post your "creationist theory of everything".
I want you to post the creationist theory that explains our origins, without using evolution.
I want you to explain "all the evidence" (or as much as current evolutionary theory explains) using creationist arguments, without resorting to the "god did it" gambit. You must use scientific principles. I want you to explain how said theory can be verified, or disproven.
I want you to show where evolution says "this is how we were created".
I want you to explain how criticism of evolution discredits it - in exactly the same scientific sense that criticism of classical physics should discredit classical physics.
That should be easy enough.
Originally posted by ena
goodness gracious and heavens-to-betsy.....the title of the thread is about 'whether' and not 'which' criticisms should be allowed of evolution.
Well, how can we decide if we should mandate criticism of evolution if we don't know what or how that criticism would be based? Of course we can't.
So, if we can get a round about idea of how evolution is failing we can decide if it's worthwhile to mandate (or at least encourage) criticism.
If we have no criticisms of evolution theory then the definitive answer to the question this thread asks is NO.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Brussell I do not question natural selection. Natural selection and macro-evolution are not one and the same. When you say above:
I have to question if you really believe that statement. I think it would be a bit limited and narrow to exclude other findings than the loose framework that would imlply Macro-evolution amoungst the evolutionists.
Natural selection = fact
micro-evolution = fact
macro-evolution = a theory that is just that. A theory.
And for your information it is not conclusive.
Fellowship
If by macroevolution you mean the differentiation of species, that is exactly what is important in his field. He examines different species (as well as higher-order classifications) of plants. In order to understand the relationships among them, he has to understand their common ancestors and how they have differentiated into different categories over time. He couldn't do what he does - group plants together - without macroevolution as a guiding framework.
The example with plants is good I think because it leaves behind some of the baggage involved with the evolution of humans. Why is it hard to believe that plants have changed over time in response to environmental pressures? And that these changes over a long period of time produce extremely different types of plants (i.e., macroevolution)? And that one can examine the plants and their genetics and their historical environment and the fossils they have left behind to trace the lineage, and determine where different categories have branched out? And if you can buy that, why can't you buy it with other living things?
Originally posted by xenu
I want you to post your "creationist theory of everything".
I want you to post the creationist theory that explains our origins, without using evolution.
I want you to explain "all the evidence" (or as much as current evolutionary theory explains) using creationist arguments, without resorting to the "god did it" gambit. You must use scientific principles. I want you to explain how said theory can be verified, or disproven.
I want you to show where evolution says "this is how we were created".
I want you to explain how criticism of evolution discredits it - in exactly the same scientific sense that criticism of classical physics should discredit classical physics.
That should be easy enough.
Greetings xenu,
I can not explain origins. I don't think a single human being on the planet can with authority. I will not pretend to know.
I do believe God created creation as it is said in Genesis. The way and means are up in the air. I am simply saying as I did a year ago in my thread that 16 18 some odd pages of discussion that I do not buy evolution as it is presented.
I respect the right of all people to hold their views. I do take issue with false data that has been presented in the past that was used solely to deceive researchers and students.
I welcome debate over the issue of origins in the classroom I see no reason why questions can not be asked of a theory.
I believe this for any non-conclusive theory out there.
Fellowship
Just one of them? How do you know?
How did this "original common ancestor" spring into life?
Any ideas?
Just curious. I have to ask these questions as they are not exactly clear.
Fellowship
Originally posted by Fangorn
Condescending.
I was going for sarcasm. Then again, sarcasm usually tends to be condescending, so you're right about that.
Where is the logic in your arguement? A belief in the "supernatural" does not preclude logic; if so, you would have to dismiss most of the "great" thinkers in history.
So how does a person convince another person who believes in the supernatural that they are wrong? You cannot come up with a proof that a belief in this are that theology is wrong since said beliefs are based on supernatural events and on faith that those supernatural events are true. You therefore cannot convince them of logic.
Really, what is the point of dicussing this sort of topic?
This is total nonsense. Part A, "To speak of the beginnings . . ." does not lead to B "one is fantasizing." What that has to do with not knowing beats me. How you get from "theological" to a "conflation of politics and science" also eludes me. Science is a tool and when used properly does not encroach on true religion. And science has not been "trumping religious dogma" for thousands of years, especially since it hasn't been around as such that long.
Why is trumptman asking the question about evolution? Why is the ciriticism of evolution education being led by theologists? It really isn't about evolution.
Science has its own builtin mechanisms against dogma. If there is something wrong with some science theory, it will eventually be superceded by something better. Evolution will be continually refined as more data arrives and research is done.
Politics is a sociologic discourse. It's a way to control society and culture. Movements to discredit evolution is a political act. Evolution is a scientific theory. So why are they being mixed together? Why do laws have to be passed to force people to teach evolution or not?
When you talking about speaking about beginnings being theological, always theological, I see it as conflating the two issues, science and religion, when there really is no link. If some physicists are studying parallel universe cosmology, they are really speaking in theological terms? No. I don't think so. So why are you saying it in such a way?
Yes, science has been changing religious dogma for thousands of years.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
The question I have for evolutionists is what was this "original common ancestor"?
A black woman in Kenya named Lateesha.
Origins Link
Also be sure to review these Five Sections
Section 6 if you wish.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Greetings xenu,
I can not explain origins. I don't think a single human being on the planet can with authority. I will not pretend to know.
I do believe God created creation as it is said in Genesis. The way and means are up in the air. I am simply saying as I did a year ago in my thread that 16 18 some odd pages of discussion that I do not buy evolution as it is presented.
I respect the right of all people to hold their views. I do take issue with false data that has been presented in the past that was used solely to deceive researchers and students.
I welcome debate over the issue of origins in the classroom I see no reason why questions can not be asked of a theory.
I believe this for any non-conclusive theory out there.
Fellowship
So creationists don't have any theories about our origins.
You have nothing more than a religious faith, which you want to put into school science classes.
The fact thet you do not buy evolution says nothing about evolution. It is your personal belief, and I respect that.
I will not respect having a religious belief - creationism - in the science class.
Do you also take issue with false arguments? Like taking scientists quotes out of context? Or the site fangorn posted which consists of primary school sillyness?
Unfortunately for you, evolution is a very successful theory.
Does it explain everything? No. Should it? No. Science doesn't work that way.
Real scientists do argue evolution. Such arguments will eventually make their way into the school room - in exactly the same way that students are taught about the 'ultraviolet catastrophe' and Einstien's theory of photons. This doesn't discredit classical physics, by the way. It simply led to a better theory - just like will happen with the current theory of evolution.
It's called science.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I welcome evolutionists to detail where they find issue with the following data:
Origins Link
Also be sure to review these Five Sections
Section 6 if you wish.
Fellowship
A quick look suggests these are nothing more than personal opinions.
No "scientific theories" are supplied. Just some very fanciful assumptions. Something creationist accuse "evolutionists" of doing.
All well and good, no doubt, if you are a sheep.
Originally posted by xenu
A quick look suggests these are nothing more than personal opinions.
No "scientific theories" are supplied. Just some very fanciful assumptions. Something creationist accuse "evolutionists" of doing.
All well and good, no doubt, if you are a sheep.
xenu we are all sheep to a degree. I just happen to believe we should let students ask questions. If at the end of the day a given student finds evolution as the truth great, if they find a different path as being truth great as well.
Again we are discussing theories that are non-conclusive.
Fellowship
Originally posted by BRussell
Uh, yeah, harassment. Hey, if I'm wrong, sobeit. Let's just say your online... demeanor... reminds me of another person who was banned a while ago. Funny how our personalities come through so strongly over this medium. Maybe alcimedes will check for me just for laughs.
Sounds great pal, I've always wanted my very own internet stalker.
Wacko.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
xenu we are all sheep to a degree. I just happen to believe we should let students ask questions. If at the end of the day a given student finds evolution as the truth great, if they find a different path as being truth great as well.
Again we are discussing theories that are non-conclusive.
Fellowship
Students do ask. In science class, you teach science. As far as our origins go, that means the theory of evolution.
Your personal opinion has no bearing on this. Since you cannot supply an alternative to evolution, it continues to be taught.
If one of these students decides to go on to do a PhD, and overturns the theory, supplying a new one, great. I look forward to reading about it. This doesn't discredit evolution.
Every theory is non-conclusive. That's a meaningless statement.
Originally posted by xenu
Students do ask. In science class, you teach science. As far as our origins go, that means the theory of evolution.
Your personal opinion has no bearing on this. Since you cannot supply an alternative to evolution, it continues to be taught.
If one of these students decides to go on to do a PhD, and overturns the theory, supplying a new one, great. I look forward to reading about it. This doesn't discredit evolution.
Every theory is non-conclusive. That's a meaningless statement.
Hold on a second. Are you saying while there is one given theory over origins another can not be pursued?
I would sure hope not.
You are welcome to also check out This Site and tell me what you find fault with concerning the arguments presented.
I always find
This Page worthy of notice.
Fellowship
Originally posted by bunge
So, if we can get a round about idea of how evolution is failing we can decide if it's worthwhile to mandate (or at least encourage) criticism.
The problem is that evolution never worked in the first place. It makes positive statements and NEVER owns up to the implications. Information-adding mutations do not occur in nature. It's just that simple. We have speciation aplenty, but the information comes from existing structure.
Evolution is not treated as a theory when approaching paleontology et al, it is treated as holy gospel and the ONLY starting point (remember its just a theory). And we go downhill from there.
It's not science, it is a sick joke that is feeding on itself.
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) - 150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.
Ramapithecus - once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realized that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape).
Eoanthropus (Piltdown man) - a hoax based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years.
Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man) - based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only living in Paraguay.
Pithecanthropus (Java man) - now renamed to Homo erectus. See below.
Australopithecus africanus - this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like.
Sinanthropus (Peking man) was once presented as an ape-man but has now been reclassified as Homo erectus (see below).
Currently fashionable ape-men
These are the ones that adorn the evolutionary trees of today that supposedly led to Homo sapiens from a chimpanzee-like creature.
Australopithecus - there are various species of these that have been at times proclaimed as human ancestors. One remains: Australopithecus afarensis, popularly known as the fossil 'Lucy'. However, detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that 'Lucy' and her like are not on the way to becoming human. For example, they may have walked more upright than most apes, but not in the human manner. Australopithecus afarensis is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee.
Homo habilis - there is a growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of various other types - such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is therefore an 'invalid taxon'. That is, it never existed as such.
Homo erectus - many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.
From this link
Just curious
Fellowship