Re: Evolutionist for Racism


<mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1142469021.539638.214780@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Maybe some didn't take their belief on evolution solely on Piltdown
Man, but if you went back to that period you'd note that belief was
based on a very few items, now called the Icons of evolution.

Just when you think McDoofus has reached the lowest level of stupidity, he
outdoes himself...... Let's take these "Icons" one by one.

1. Piltdown Man

Hardly and "icon", it was a hoax, that science has abandoned long ago.

2. Haeckel's charts

Informative, for their time, but they have been replaced by photographs.

3. Biogenetic Law

Rejected by science for a very long time.

4. Comparative anatomy

A very good field of evidence for evolution.

5. Moths before and after indus. revolution

A very good example of how natural selection operates.

6. Darwin's "natural selection"

Part of the mechanism by which evolution operates.

7. Neanderthal Man

A genuine extinct human species.

8. Java Man

Now referred to as Homo erectus. A very real, and very important hominid
fossil. It was the first non-human hominid fossil found.

9. Gill slits.

Aka, embryology. Gill slits exist, no matter what you want to call them.




Personally, for myself, I found the greatest strength in my former
belief in evolution to be found in the gill slits.

Your own stupidity is hardly relevant.

I believed that to
be the only objective evidence.

Which only shows yourself to be a chowderhead. There is a great deal of
objective evidence beyond the pharyangeal arches in embryos.

As an evolutionist I found comparative
anatomy to be simplistic.

That's because you are a chowderhead. Compartive anatomy is a strong
indication of common descent.

I just discarded it as evidence because just
because they looked the same could mean a common designer.

One should not "discard" evidence for no reason. Any evidence can "mean a
common designer", as a designer could theoretically do anything.

After all,
hands of animals could rotate because of the bones therein. Not because
of evolution.

But why do they have the same bones to do different tasks? Evolution is
an explanation for the common features, which does not make sense otherwise.

As for the ape men I didn't see the evidence, and many
of them look like apes.

Again, you are showing yourself to be a chowderhead. "many of them look
like apes"? All of them "look like apes", even modern humans, because they
ARE apes.

Gill slits was the only objective evidence,
that was exclusive of fiat creation. Because why would a human embryo
have gills?

They don't. They have structures that are derived from gills. If you
had bothered to learn something, you might have actually kept some grasp of
reality.

Too me that was objective. But after gill slits had been
distroyed I soon lost that last vestige of doubt in fiat creation.

Even though "fiat creation" has no evidence, and is thouroughly
unscientific, all it took was a misunderstanding of embryology to make you
accept it??


I have to state also, in all fairness to the abiogenesis viewpoint, I
tried to conceive of ways in which it could be possible.

Ok, you are stupid, and you think everyone else must be as stupid as you
are....

I tried
thinking of ways that chemicals could bond, form a cell and necessary
organs.

Did you ever study any chemistry? Do you have ANY knowlege of the
biochemical reactions that take place in living things?

But remember, inorder for the cell to operate on the get go it
had to be able to obtain food, metabolize it and convert it into
protein, manipulate that protein into a cell wall,

Unless it wasn't as complex as a modern cell "from the get go".

and from the start,
be able to reproduce itself. I spent late nights laying in bed
considering this matter.

So, because your own ignorance didn't give you a solution, you decided then
and there that it's impossible.

The conclusion of the matter, it's impossible.

Only to someone who is a chowderhead.

DJT

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Tweedys Turkana Boy
    ... insertions, genetic scars we carry from our ancestors, are not evidence ... point in support of human evolution. ... What do you think ERVIs, transitional human fossils, ... other apes. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Tweedys Turkana Boy
    ... insertions, genetic scars we carry from our ancestors, are not evidence ... point in support of human evolution. ... What do you think ERVIs, transitional human fossils, ... other apes. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Mendel refutes evolution
    ... evidence of this change and projects it into their idea speculating ... that since evolution happened and is observed ("I tawt I taw a pink pea ... We *are apes, remember? ... of advantageous mutations by the environment ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Mendel refutes evolution
    ... evidence of this change and projects it into their idea speculating ... that since evolution happened and is observed ("I tawt I taw a pink pea ... We *are apes, remember? ... of advantageous mutations by the environment. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... intelligent design has produced these types of functions ... is just evidence that intelligence *can* produce such things. ... there's no proof that evolution did produce it, ... So how is the assertion that specific functions in biological systems ...
    (talk.origins)