Scientism's Downfall

>large parts of it are based on speculation
>sloppy science
>assumptions
>huge parts of the theory that have yet to be shown
>can't explain all of the transformations of life
elaborate on all of these

>What's a Hume's guillotine? The article
Sometimes the mediocre reasoning skills of creationists are overwhelming

daily reminder that darwinian evolutionary theory was a product of post-french revolution positivist interpretations of history where the concept and field of history was being divorced from its judeo-christian roots

buncha outdated historicist bullshit if you ask me

>creationists
Nice meme, atheist

Fruitflies.

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

>trying to use Scripture to prove your monkey ideology

>The Bible
Yeah, no.
Even if that WAS the word of it.
Even by Christian acknowledgement it has been reorganised and rewritten countless times.
Which means, like Chinese whispers.
It would barely, if at all, by the words of God.
But rather, the words of human corruption.
So, that's discarded.
Anything else?

And what I meant was, is that we can observe evolution in fruitflies, far more rapidly than in most other animals.

>discarding the words of the Almighty

If we go by that logic, cleft palettes and down syndrome is "evolution" as well. All mutations are harmful, and take away from His design.

Ok then, everyone, if you think evolution is not real, explain me the existense of the riboenzymes (hint: They are RNA catalysts)

Why I ask? Enzymes catalyse most reactions in our body.
DNA transcripts to RNA which translates to proteins.

Not the words of God, even if it once was.

>If we go by that logic, cleft palettes and down syndrome is "evolution" as well. All mutations are harmful, and take away from His design.
>Get pale skin.
>Live in climate lacking access to vitamin D.
>Pale skin helps us get access to vitamin D, so we do better than those without pale skin and become majority.
No beneficial?
Fuck off.

Variation, not mutation.

Those malformations are what drive evolution. The genetic information that God designed fails sometimes and once in a while the failure is positive for the adaption to a changing environment/diet/etc. These happy little accidents drive evolution.

>What are Albinos?

Descendants of michael jackson

Ah, of course.

Not enough for a whale, though. All I've seen is speculation in the place of actual evidence. Faith rather than fact.

The same with religion.
And you cannot best hypocrisy, with hypocrisy.

I have revelation, you have rebellion.

>I have semantics, you have facts.
Nice try.
I have Wotan!
GLORY TO THE PAGAN PANTHEON!

Britishs lie.

We knew that long before this, that doesn't disprove every other remain out there, you are just memeing.

Actually, as early as the same year it was presented Piltdown man was suspect. It didn't fit any of the proposed models for ape to human evolution, and as the evidence for evolution began to pile up, it only began to look more and more suspicious. The very ape-like jaw, attached to a human-like head was an oddity, since evolutionary predictions (which were increasingly being confirmed by fossil evidence) were that the major differences in early man had more to do with gait and teeth structure, not jaw. In the 60's it was definitively proven to have been a hoax, confirming what many scientists had suspected all along. Here's the thing: creatards love to jump in and act like this is a death blow to evolution. Exactly the opposite is the case. Piltdown, contrary to most creationist claims, was actually NOT a "major missing link" - again, he was out of place from the first year he was presented to the scientific community. Rather, the theory of evolution was confirmed, because evolutionary biologists, working with the evidence, recognized a fraud and updated the information. Creationists were not the ones who discovered the flaw. It was scientists, doing what scientists do, that bore out the scientific method.

bevets.com/piltdown.htm

...

.

..

What exactly is the point of posting old graphs?

Apparently to display modern recognition.
>*stifles laughter*

>Friendly reminder that evolution is an unscientific worldview, held together by frauds, hoaxes, and misinformation.
There have been a few hoaxes involved in the study of evolution, but it's 2017. There is no possible way that you aren't aware that evolution is a fact. You do know that, right? How can you possibly assert that evolution is unscientific when every single field of science that has to do with life confirms it? Microbiology, anatomy, physiology, medical sciences, genetics, paleontology, neuro science, just to name a few, all support and require evolution. There is more evidence in support of evolution than there is for almost any other scientific theory, including gravity and germ theory. Let me guess, you also think the world is flat, right, and the moon landing was faked? You should join the 21st century. It's nice here.

Nobody seriously claims "perfection" for science. The claim it that it is a better system for finding out what the fuck is really going on in the natural world than any other we have come up with to date.

I'll note that Science took some time to catch onto the Piltdown fraud, it did so faster than WaPo-style investigative journalism.

Wait, you think mutations are against the will of God and detract from His design? He designed the system that produces them, brother.

I believe evolution is real.

That said, I believe your logic here is faulty.

IF God created everything a few thousand years ago in one go, riboenzymes do not seem to be somehow intrinsically too difficult for Him.

Showing that
>It didn't fit any of the proposed models for ape to human evolution
Is a false statement

>le current year meme
>"all evidence points to x" meme
Tell me again about how gender is a spectrum and your sex junk. I also assume you don't understand medicine.

Variation=/=mutation
Variation is within His plan, mutation is against it.

Ah yes, totally ignore my argument.

>Tell me again about how gender is a spectrum and your sex junk. I also assume you don't understand medicine.
Well, if we're made in God's image, then he must be genderless.
So being transgender is more divine than being on a binary.
Thanks, user, you've enlightened me. ;)

This image and everything you just said are fucking stupid.

> falling for bait this easily

name one (1) industrial or technical application of creationist theory... oh wait there isn't any.

whether evolution is """""true""""" or not is irrelevant, its good enough to be useful outside of philosophical circle jerking which makes it the status quo for the scientific community. you know, the guys who are majority funded by private industry. there's a reason why Exxon and BHP Billiton aren't giving grants to creationist research.

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

icr.org/article/raymond-damadian-inventor-mri/

...

.

>icr.org/article/raymond-damadian-inventor-mri/

lol at your reading comprehension retard.

i said show me an application of the creationist model, not a creationist doctor.

>Gensis 5:1-2
>This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Doesn't disprove the fact that God is genderfluid.

..

Evolutionist model surely didn't help him.

God is referred to as He, and He alone.

>Posting pictures of my shitty biased and unbalanced book proves anything.
It doesn't.

>God is referred to as He, and He alone.
Yes, those are the pronouns he prefers.
It doesn't mean he isn't genderfluid, or a hermaphrodite.

Begone, modernist.

Not an argument.
I'm glad God is so accepting of transgender people though.

Yes, enough for a whale.

>After billions of years and mountains of dead bodies, these proved to be effective in certain niche use cases
>we want a good design for these use cases
>Choose the evolved form and modify
So, are you gonna say that neural nets are intelligent design now?

Nice cartoon, have this.

Also this.
youtu.be/591IqiNMd1k

why did you make this thread if you aren't going to put in the effort to express your own arguments?

That's like saying:
>Have chicken
>Have egg
Retarded OP: How many chicken you see?
Spastic retard replying: Two! :D
>Show cookery book
Retarded OP: How many chicken you see?
Spastic retard replying: One! :DDDD
It is a total non sequitur.
As if the evolution was at such disparity between the two and they'd be seperate for hundreds of millions of years, enough to change order.
It wouldn't be a whale anymore, you dishonest moron.

>The Overselling Of Whale Evolution by Ashby L. Camp

Conventional wisdom among evolutionists, at least at the popular level, is that whales descended from Mesonychidae, an early and diverse family of land mammals that were well adapted for running.[1] It is hypothesized that some mesonychid species began feeding on creatures inhabiting shallow waters and that over many generations the selective pressures created by this change of diet transformed one or more of the species into an amphibious archaeocete. The selective pressures of amphibious living in turn generated a variety of archaeocetes and eventually transformed one or more of the species into a fully marine archaeocete. Marine existence then shaped further adaptations to produce the 75 to 77 living species of whales, porpoises, and dolphins.[2]

Some evolutionists believe the fossil record has established this claim beyond a reasonable doubt. One writer went so far as to pronounce that “the evolutionary case is now closed.”[3] The purpose of this article is to suggest that the fossil evidence for the mesonychid-to-whale transition is not persuasive, let alone conclusive.

youtube.com/watch?v=8cn0kf8mhS4

>Mesonychids to Archaeocetes

The first claim in the evolutionists’ scenario is that archaeocetes descended from a mesonychid species. The ancestral status of Mesonychidae was first proposed by Leigh Van Valen in 1966 on the basis of certain dental similarities between the mesonychid Dissacus navajovius (which is Dissacus carnifex of Cope) and some archaeocete specimens. His rather cautious statement of the claim is worth recalling:
To my knowledge the family of Mesonychidae is one of the relatively few groups of mammals (and even of reptiles) that has not been specifically suggested as ancestral to the whales, but in my opinion the preceding argument establishes them as at least the most likely candidate. . . . Dissacus navajovius is possibly directly ancestral, but little is known of the early history of the mesonychids, especially outside North America.[4]
In a more extensive analysis published three years later, Frederick Szalay suggested that both hapalodectines (which was then considered a mesonychid subfamily) and archaeocetes probably “derived from either early or middle Paleocene mesonychids, species more primitive than known mesonychines” [emphasis mine].[5] In other words, Szalay concluded that both Dissacus and Ankalagon, the only middle Paleocene mesonychids known at that time, were too derived (evolutionarily advanced) to be in the archaeocete lineage.[6] He saw them as "sister groups" of the archaeocetes, not as actual ancestors.

you aren't going to put in the effort to express your own arguments. You even plagiarizer wikipedia

Since publication of the Szalay article, three more genera of middle Paleocene mesonychids have been identified in Asia (Dissacusium, Hukoutherium, Yangtanglestes), but none is known from anything more than fragmentary crania.[7] Information on Hukoutherium, the best known of the three, is limited to a crushed and broken skull with lower jaws.[8] No one has nominated any of these genera for ancestor of the archaeocetes, and thus mesonychids continue to be classified in the more technical literature as a "sister group" to the archaeocetes.[9]

To acknowledge, as Robert Carroll did recently, that “[i]t is not possible to identify a sequence of mesonychids leading directly to whales,” is to understate the problem.[10] It is not even possible to identify a single ancestral species. All known mesonychids are excluded from the actual chain of descent by the evolutionists’ own criteria.

The reason evolutionists are confident that mesonychids gave rise to archaeocetes, despite the inability to identify any species in the actual lineage, is that known mesonychids and archaeocetes have some similarities. These similarities, however, are not sufficient to make the case for ancestry, especially in light of the vast differences. The subjective nature of such comparisons is evident from the fact so many groups of mammals and even reptiles have been suggested as ancestral to whales.

In the case of mesonychids, the relationship to archaeocetes is based on the most general of similarities. As Van Valen acknowledged in the original article proposing mesonychid ancestry:

[M]any features of the skull of Protocetus [an early archaeocete - AC] are not similar to those of either the Hyaenodontidae or the Mesonychidae (or to any other terrestrial mammal known to me) and probably represent to a considerable extent a reorganization of the skull, the chain of effects resulting from adaptation to hearing, feeding, locomotion, and other functions in an aquatic existence.[11]
This point was later echoed by Edwin Colbert: “In general this [archaeocete] skull appears as if it might have been derived from a mesonychid type, but there is little beyond certain general resemblances to support such a relationship.”[12] Others have likewise noted that the cited similarities in skull and dental characters “are not all clear-cut.”[13] One need only compare the reconstructed skull of the late Paleocene Sinonyx jiashanensis to that of an early archaeocete to appreciate these remarks.[14 ]

>Amphibious Archaeocete to Fully Marine Archaeocete

The second claim in the evolutionists’ explanation of the origin of whales is that an amphibious archaeocete evolved into a fully marine archaeocete. It is believed that this transformation is documented by a sequence of intermediate forms, what one writer called the “sweetest series of transitional fossils an evolutionist could ever hope to find.”[15] This series, which spans 10-12 million years of the Eocene, includes Pakicetus inachus, Ambulocetus natans, Rodhocetus kasrani, Indocetus ramani, Protocetus atavus, and Basilosaurus isis.[16]
It is important to understand that, in calling these creatures a “series of transitional fossils,” the evolutionist does not mean that they form an actual lineage of ancestors and descendants. On the contrary, they readily acknowledge that these archaeocetes “cannot be strung in procession from ancestor to descendant in a scala naturae.”[17 ] What they mean is that these fossils show a progressive development within Archaeoceti of certain features found in the later, fully marine forms such as Basilosaurus. (The specific features relate mainly to the middle ear and the appendicular skeleton.) This progression of features is believed to correspond to changes that were occurring in the actual basilosaurid lineage.

Whether the early archaeocetes form a series or sequence of intermediate forms depends, of course, on their morphology and their stratigraphic position. The claim is that, for each of these fossils, the degree of evolutionary advancement corresponds to the stratigraphic position. In other words, the older the fossil the less advanced its features; the younger the fossil the more advanced its features. It is this correspondence of form and position (age) that provides the impression of directional transformation through time.

The generally accepted order of the archaeocete species, in terms of both morphological (primitive to advanced) and stratigraphical (lower/older to higher/younger) criteria, is Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Indocetus, Protocetus, and Basilosaurus (see note 16). One problem for this tidy picture is that the stratigraphical relationships of most of these fossils are uncertain.

In the standard scheme, Pakicetus inachus is dated to the late Ypresian, but several experts acknowledge that it may date to the early Lutetian.[18] If the younger date (early Lutetian) is accepted, then Pakicetus is nearly, if not actually, contemporaneous with Rodhocetus, an early Lutetian fossil from another formation in Pakistan.[19] Moreover, the date of Ambulocetus, which was found in the same formation as Pakicetus but 120 meters higher, would have to be adjusted upward the same amount as Pakicetus.[20] This would make Ambulocetus younger than Rodhocetus and possibly younger than Indocetus and even Protocetus.[21]

In the standard scheme, Protocetus is dated to the middle Lutetian, but some experts have dated it in the early Lutetian.[22] If the older date (early Lutetian) is accepted, then Protocetus is contemporaneous with Rodhocetus and Indocetus. In that case, what is believed to have been a fully marine archaeocete was already on the scene at or near the time archaeocetes first appear in the fossil record.[23]

Given the significance evolutionists have attributed to these fossils in their battle with creationists, one cannot help but wonder whether their stratigraphical arrangement in the standard scheme has been influenced by their morphology. One committed to evolution would tend to be less critical of dates that placed these fossils in a morphological sequence and more critical of dates that disrupted that sequence.[24] As the diversity and shifts of expert opinion indicate, stratigraphical correlation is more an art than is commonly appreciated.

Based on the foregoing, it is reasonable to believe, even from within an evolutionist framework, that all the early archaeocetes were essentially contemporaries. Basilosaurus isis, on the other hand, was a gigantic marine archaeocete dating to the early Bartonian.[25] Evolutionists suspect that basilosaurids descended from the earlier Protocetidae (which includes the archaeocetes discussed above), but specialists admit there is a “lack of clear ancestor to descendant relationships.”[26] Indeed, the tremendous size difference between Basilosaurinae and protocetids casts doubt on that hypothesis. All protocetids were less than ten feet long, whereas Basilosaurus cetoides was over 80 feet in length, and Basilosaurus isis was over 50 feet.[27] It has been calculated that, even in a rapidly evolving line, changes in size are usually on the order of only 1-10% per million years.[28]

Lacking a cogent argument that Basilosaurus isis actually descended from protocetids, evolutionists claim it is transitional in the sense that it exhibits features between the earlier protocetids and the later cetaceans. If Protocetus was fully marine, as some experts now believe, it is questionable whether and to what extent the features of Basilosaurus can be characterized as more “advanced.” But more importantly, if Basilosaurus did not descend from protocetids and was not ancestral to cetaceans (see below), what does the presence of intermediate features in Basilosaurus establish? It seems the most one could say is that it indirectly supports the claim of descent with modification by showing a creature similar to the creature hypothesized to be in the actual lineage. Creationists find this too weak to carry the extraordinary claim of cetacean evolution.

>Archaeocetes to Modern Cetaceans

The third claim in the evolutionists’ chain of events is that archaeocetes gave rise to modern cetaceans. This is sometimes asserted as a fact, but the relationship between these suborders has long been debated.
There are major differences between the archaeocetes and cetaceans (e.g., body shape, thoracic fin structure, and skull arrangement) which have led many experts to deny that archaeocetes gave rise to odontocetes or mysticetes.[29] As George Gaylord Simpson concluded:

Thus the Archaeoceti, middle Eocene to early Miocene, are definitely the most primitive of cetaceans, but they can hardly have given rise to the other suborders. The Odontoceti, late Eocene to Recent, are on a higher grade than the Archaeoceti and, on the average, lower than the Mysticeti, middle Oligocene to Recent, but apparently were not derived from the former and did not give rise to the latter.[30]

The point was reiterated two decades later by A. V. Yablokov, who wrote, “It is now obvious to most investigators that the Archaeoceti cannot be regarded as direct ancestral forms of the modern cetaceans.”[31] This was the consensus opinion until relatively recently.[32]
The current leaders in the field believe that archaeocetes were ancestral to modern whales, but there is no agreement on which family of archaeocetes was involved. In fact, all three families (Protocetidae, Remingtonocetidae, and Basilosauridae) have been proposed.[33] This is particularly revealing when one considers how radically different Remingtonocetidae is from the other archaeocetes.[34]

In addition, no chain of descent from archaeocetes to modern whales has been identified. The phylogenetic relationships among major lineages within the Cetacea continue to be “very poorly understood,” which is why recent phylogenies are dominated by dead ends, broken lines, and question marks.[35] As for Basilosaurus isis, it is generally recognized that Basilosaurinae was an isolated subfamily that had nothing to do with the origin of modern whales.[36]

>Endnotes

[1] E.g., Stephen Jay Gould, “Hooking Leviathan By Its Past,” Natural History (April 1994): 12; Carl Zimmer, “Back to the Sea,” Discover (January 1995): 83; Elizabeth Culotta, “It’s A Long Way From Ambulocetus,” Pacific Discovery (Winter 1996): 16. Szalay and Gould divided Mesonychidae into three subfamilies: Mesonychinae, Hapalodectinae, and Andrewsarchinae. Frederick S. Szalay and Stephen Jay Gould, “Asiatic Mesonychidae (Mammalia, Condylarthra),” Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 132 (1966): 156. However, “mesonychids are now often given ordinal rank as either Mesonychia or Acreodi.” Maureen A. O’Leary and Kenneth D. Rose, “Postcranial Skeleton of the Early Eocene Mesonychid Pachyaena (Mammalia: Mesonychia),” Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 15, no. 2 (1995): 402. Current thinking is that Hapalodectinae should be placed in its own family. Xiaoyuan Zhou, Renjie Zhai, Philip D. Gingerich, and Liezu Chen, “Skull of New Mesonychid (Mammalia, Mesonychia) From the Late Paleocene of China,” Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 15, no. 2 (1995): 387, 396-98.

[2] The scenario is sketched in Keith Banister and Andrew Campbell, eds., The Encyclopedia of Aquatic Life (New York: Facts on File Publications, 1985), 294-296. See also Culotta, 16. The order Cetacea includes the whales, porpoises, and dolphins. The 75 to 77 living species are divided into 13 or 14 families and two suborders: Mysticeti (baleen whales) and Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises). The extinct suborder Archaeoceti is a wastebasket group that includes all ancient toothed Cetacea that lack the cranial features of Odontoceti and Mysticeti. It is comprised of three extinct families: Protocetidae, Remingtonocetidae, and Basilosauridae. The family Protocetidae includes the extinct subfamily Pakicetinae. The family Basilosauridae is comprised of two extinct subfamilies: Dorudontinae and Basilosaurinae. See, R. Ewan Fordyce and Lawrence G. Barnes, “The Evolutionary History of Whales and Dolphins,” Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Science, 22 (1994): 419, 427-31.

[3] Zimmer, 84.

[4] Leigh Van Valen, “Deltatheridia, A New Order of Mammals,” Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 132 (1966): 92.

[5] Frederick S. Szalay, “The Hapalodectinae and a Phylogeny of the Mesonychidae (Mammalia, Condylarthra),” American Museum Novitates 2361 (1969): 25; for application of statement to archaeocetes, see figure 19, p. 24.

[6] Szalay and Gould, 169-170 lists Dissacus as the only middle Paleocene mesonychid known at the time. Dissacus sensu Szalay and Gould was later divided into Dissacus and Ankalagon (type species being Dissacus saurognathus, which is Dissacus carnifex of Osborn and Earle). Leigh Van Valen, “Ankalagon, New Name (Mammalia: Condylarthra),” Journal of Paleontology 54, no. 1 (1980): 266. Microclaendon, which was not listed by Szalay and Gould, is now generally classified with triisodontines rather than mesonychids. Philip D. Gingerich, “Radiation of Early Cenozoic Didymoconidae (Condylarthra, Mesonychia) in Asia, With a New Genus From Early Eocene of Western North America,” Journal of Mammalogy 62, no. 3 (1981): 535. It is noteworthy that the skull of neither Dissacus nor Ankalagon has been recovered. These genera are known from jaws, teeth, and rather limited postcrania.

[7] Discoveries of Dissacusium and Hukoutherium were first published in 1973; discovery of Yangtanglestes was first published in 1976. Li Chuan Luei and Ting Su-Yin, “The Paleogene Mammals of China,” Bulletin of Carnegie Museum of Natural History 21 (1983): 1-93. Dissacus and Ankalagon are the only Paleocene mesonychids for which postcrania have been described. O’Leary and Rose, 401.

The design, and subsequent creation of an Intel Core i7 chip is an observable sequence of events.
The design and subsequent creation of Mosquitoes is not observable. Nor can we observe the method of its creation simply by observing it.

*It being the Mosquito/i7

>Hmm, how should I design Man?
>I know, I'll give him an appendix and make his inner ear so that he gets nauseous when he spins in circles!

>appendix
creation.com/your-appendix-its-there-for-a-reason

>inner ear
Keeps you from falling over, doesn't it?

youtu.be/9nf0gayCSG8

>Keeps you from falling over, doesn't it?
not after spinning in circles

>inner ear controls orientation
yes, but there's no reason why it would make you nauseous.
also, thinking of the ear, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_tubercle
and just generally this entire article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

youtu.be/0KfX7ymDt5M

put on a tripcode please

>your-appendix-its-there-for-a-reason
but-not-the-reason-you-think.jpg

oh look, the Creationist is back at it again like all his claims weren't BTFO in the last fifteen threads he made.
this is your reminder that a week or two ago, he literally posted a blatantly photoshopped pic of cave paintings and then claimed that there was a conspiracy to cover up that they were real.

>All mutations are harmful
tell that to those prostitutes in South Africa who are immune to HIV infection because they carry a mutation that causes them not to express a certain membrane protein that HIV uses to get into cells.

>evolutionists only think that evolution is real because they don't believe in God
how do you explain all the believers and theists (like me) who still conclude that evolution is real?

this desu senpai
Piltdown was considered with skepticism from the very beginning

>we should pretend there are no vestigial structures in the body because I don't like evolution
if you Creationists had your way, we'd all still be dying of smallpox

mutation causes variation.
this is easily proven by demonstrating that sometimes certain variation arises in a population where it previously did not exist.

>God is referred to as He, and He alone.
wrong.
in the original Hebrew of the Scripture you cite, there are multiple words used to refer to God, some of which (e.g. shekhinah) are grammatically feminine.

>To my knowledge
is just another way of saying
>I'm too uninformed to know better than to say this

>the inner ear is like a gyroscope!
NO, IT IS LIKE A SPIRIT LEVEL, YOU NITWIT

Why do people reply to obvious bait threads?

Guys evolution is just a theory ok? Ok you guys?

God is flawless.