+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 46
Latest: Tony Ryan
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 12392
Total Topics: 258
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: Darwin  (Read 7272 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24090
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2013, 09:14:29 pm »
Well, I still need to do more research on how they rebuild the muscles and skin on a cadaver's face with only a skull.

But here is the premise I would begin with: Muscles are anchored with tendons to the bones of mammalian skeletons and appearance follows their function.

Apes, for example, APPEAR to us to be stooped when they are in the normal position. They aren't stooped at all. You are seeing the way their musculature disguises the skeleton architecture. The upper body strength of apes and chimps is much greater than that of small monkeys and humans.

Small monkeys have a much more similar skull (except for the fact that it is tiny) to humans than to apes. If I were looking for an evolutionary cousin, I'd look for the creature with the most similar skull as matter of Occam's Razor. I would not be bound by Darwinian accepted assumptions with no scientific grounding except the Theory of Evolution champions' (not even the theory itself!) assertion that we descended from apes. They created a procrustean bed for evolutionary scientists by forcing archeologists to ALWAYS look for APE-like missing links.

And Surly, in nature, DNA can do some very wild things. I have seen what a mosquito larvae looks like under a microscope in a bit of pond water.  Observe the segmentation present also in millipedes and centipedes. Observe the feather/fin like multiple appendages instead of feet. It's a swimming centipede!


Mosquito larvae on left - much smaller than centipede on right

Yet a mosquito is not related, according to the evolutionists, to a centipede. That is, one did not evolve from the other. The insect hordes all show up around the Devonian - supposedly 400 million years ago with a few changes due to "natural selection" and extinction events to arrive at our "modern" insects - Triassic until now (you know, Dinosaurs until NOW  ;)).



comparison of Dinosaurs of the Triassic Period

Quote
Insect evolution is characterized by rapid adaptation  ???
with selective pressures exerted by environment, ???
with rapid adaptation being furthered by their high fecundity. ???

It appears ??? that rapid radiations and the appearance of new species, a process that continues to this day, ???
result in insects filling all available environmental niches.

Insect evolution is closely related to the evolution of flowering plants.     Insect adaptations include feeding on flowers and related structures, with some 20% of extant insects depending on flowers, nectar or pollen for their food source. This symbiotic relationship is even more paramount in evolution  considering that about 2/3 of flowering plants are insect pollinated.  ;) 

Insects are also vectors of many pathogens that may even have been responsible for the decimation or extinction of some mammalian species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogeny_of_insects


I will take the above quote apart in a minute but let me tell you where I'm going with this centipede/ mosquito thing as related to studying hominid skulls.

We have centipedes and we have mosquitos. How come such analogous shapes are allegedly NOT related? BECAUSE they show up at the same time in the fossil record. Why do they assume (no proof, just Darwinian based speculation) something is not related to something else when they appear at the same time? Because the Theory REQUIRES a distance in time for one thing to evolve into another, period.

Now you would say, HEY, didn't Darwin think we came from apes (which, of course, exist now too!)? YEP. It was OBVIOUSLY, as Ashvin pointed out in a quote here recently, based on prejudice against negros and had nothing to do with science. If Darwin had been approaching the issue scientifically, he would have to ASSUME that all modern life forms are evolved from something that is not present today. But he didn't do that, did he?  ;)

The evolutionary scientists DO THAT today saying that, OBVIOUSLY, what we evolved from doesn't exist today so it was incorrect to think we are related to apes or chimps. It HAS to be that we have a common missing link someplace back there, they say. Sniff!

When they do that they step further into illogic. Why? Because Mosquitos and centipedes and dragon flies and MILLIONs (about 12 million total of which most are insects at last count) of other insects STOPPED "EVOLVING" at the time of the Triassic (and the links to their Devonian cousins are speculative due to the NEW forms that were symbiotic with the NEW types of plant life - angiosperms
Quote
The apparently sudden appearance of relatively modern flowers in the fossil record initially posed such a problem for the theory of evolution that it was called an "abominable mystery" by Charles Darwin.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowering_plant)!
But they just don't want to address that brazen bit of inconsistency in their flawed theory. Now of course they want to talk about "rapid adaptation" and "evolutionary spurts" and all sorts of silliness that strains credibility in all but the most gullible.

So, back to the basic premise of a truly scientific approach to what is in the fossil record. A mosquito larvae looks like a centipede adult form. Let's check the DNA package to look for similar gene coding sequences. We find, say a 30% identical set of sequences for two creatures that did not evolve from each other. Hmmmm. There is NO fossil evidence of insects before the Devonian. Working hypothesis: Somebody designed them both. Why? Because they have a similar design and did not have time to evolve from anything else because there simply isn't anything else remotely similar to insects prior to that time. To complicate matters further, we have the angiosperms (flowering plants) showing up at the same time as the insects that pollinate AND feed on them(symbiosis).

In the quote from the evolutionary view of insect phylogeny above, observe the following DATA presented and why the conclusions are exactly backwards in an attempt to fit the facts to natural selection (and even that they mess up!).

 

1. RAPID ADAPTATION can ONLY occur when the DNA PACKAGE has latent coding sequences that respond to environmental pressures. Think of an aircraft fliying through the air. It has a landing gear that NEEDS TO BE HIDDEN or the plane won't fly as well. However, when it has to land, the landing gear has to come out for the plane to survive. The landing gear is in the ORIGINAL "DNA" package design of the aircraft and environmental conditions cause the "landing gear gene" to be expressed. This is NOT EVOLUTION. This is adaptation from a pre-planned DNA design.

The SLOW ADAPTATION to environmental stresses from mutations in natural selection CANNOT produce RAPID ANYTHING because 98% of mutations are harmful. I've discussed the math before. When Positive mutations occur, it is a glacially slow process. That process becomes MISSION IMPOSSIBLE when we have multiple symbiotic mechanisms occurring SIMULTANEOUSLY between two extremely disparate life forms (flowering plants and insects). 


2. After they emit all this silliness, "Insect evolution is characterized by rapid adaptation 
with selective pressures exerted by environment,..." , they jump to the old 'evolution through multiple generations' trick,   ;)
"with rapid adaptation being furthered by their high fecundity." .

WHY is this not logical, or truth based? BECAUSE the flowering plants arrived at the SAME TIME in the fossil record as the insects that feed on them AND pollinate them. If fecundity had anything to do with natural selection or any other "evolutionary" species modifying mechanism, we would have VERY DIFFERENT insects than the "modern" ones we have that are virtually UNCHANGED from the Triassic!

So fecundity works when it is CONVENIENT to the theory of evolution and doesn't when they don't need to explain some "difficulty" in their procrustean bed?  I don't think so.



After that package of pseudo-scientific assumptions above, they go ALL OUT into speculation to make a giant assumption,
"It appears  ;D that rapid radiations and the appearance of new species,...".

Let's correct that statement to state the FACTS,  "It appears  that rapid radiations and the rapid simultaneous appearance of new species depending for their existence on multiple symbiotic mechanisms cannot be explained by natural selection".



Finally, they make the final leap of Darwinian faith to the present despite not having ANY significant change in insects morphology since the Triassic to indicate "evolution" is in progress,
"a process that continues to this day, result in insects filling all available environmental niches."   

Let's correct that last bit of wishful thinking to reflect the facts on the ground: It appears  that  the rapid simultaneous appearance of new species depending for their existence on multiple symbiotic mechanisms cannot be explained by natural selection, indicating a (still unexplained) process occurred in the Triassic period that resulted in insects filling all available environmental niches of the present biosphere.

The symbiotic angiosperm/insect relationship is not rapidly adapting to the present level of planetary industrial toxins. Therefore, whatever the unexplained rapid adaptation mechanism that occurred in the Triassic Period was, there is no evidence that it is present today because we are experiencing a high level of species extinctions affecting, but not limited to, insects and angiosperms.


THAT is honest science.


I would proceed from my observation that mosquitoes and centipedes and angiosperms appeared simultaneously to find out when WE appeared. I would need a clock. I would start with Carbon-14 (up to 100,000 years accurately IF the carbon radioactive decay clock hasn't changed over that period but I would start with it just the same). WHY? Because we have items with organic carbon that we KNOW the date of like Egyptian mummies that we can crosscheck for accuracy.

Crude oil, for example contains NO carbon-14, indicating that, since the plant life form that became that oil decayed, all the C-14 has radiated out. That means crude oil is technically older than 100,000 years.

I would proceed to more higher scale dating methods only if I couldn't get C-14 data.


THEN, with some ball park figures and some skulls from MONKEYS, not apes, I would start looking at DNA sequences.

Only after I was convinced our closest relative was not the one that looks most like us (monkeys, not chimps or apes) would I dig further. During that time I would study the tendon bone attachments, anatomy and physiology of hominid skulls. I would go where the data took me.



Yes, I have a working hypothesis that we are a package DNA deal (created by God) and I would certainly want to find proof. But it is far more logical to start with that hypothesis than the Darwinian one  because evolution doesn't have proof of their most basic premise! (the self assembling amino acids for the first cell).

Furthermore, I have fossil evidence that millions of species popped up out of nowhere in more than one strata. I think I'm being more scientific and empirical than the Darwinists "it's all a crap shoot" arrogance, don't you?
This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6

 

+-Recent Topics

Doomstead Diner Daily by AGelbert
June 24, 2019, 09:03:22 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
June 24, 2019, 06:54:51 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
June 24, 2019, 04:31:13 pm

End Times according to the Judeo Christian Bible by AGelbert
June 24, 2019, 02:48:16 pm

The lowest elevation fresh water lake in the world, the Sea of Galilee, is DRYING UP by AGelbert
June 24, 2019, 02:20:05 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
June 24, 2019, 12:09:49 am

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
June 23, 2019, 06:28:48 pm

U.S. History & Politics, Climate Change, Trump Impeachment & Standing Rock: CONTEXT by AGelbert
June 23, 2019, 05:11:37 pm

Fossil Fuel Profits Getting Eaten Alive by Renewable Energy! by AGelbert
June 23, 2019, 04:03:37 pm

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
June 23, 2019, 01:06:59 pm