THE COLLAPSE OF EVOLUTION video download - Page 2




 
--
Boots
 
November 30th, 2004  
Missileer
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
I know, but I'm saying that people seem to have stopped evolving because the machines are doing the evolving for us. That's what makes us a special case. I guess like the Shark and crocodile, a design so good, an upgrade is not neccessary
Actually, people have evolved slightly and are larger in structure than even as early as the late 1800's. A large amount of clothing such as Civil War uniforms and boots are a couple of sizes smaller than similar clothing these times. I read about saddles from the early West being built for smaller people, mostly men.
December 1st, 2004  
LeatherNeckRVA
 
humans are much larger than they were 200 hundred years ago. we've also built up a great deal of immunties(although im not sure if those are genetic). there are several small things that have changed, but its true we havnt evolved recently(thousands of years) that is anything like hte evolution you think of(tail, gills, etc.)
December 1st, 2004  
Missileer
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeatherNeckRVA
humans are much larger than they were 200 hundred years ago. we've also built up a great deal of immunties(although im not sure if those are genetic). there are several small things that have changed, but its true we havnt evolved recently(thousands of years) that is anything like hte evolution you think of(tail, gills, etc.)
I think the changes we see in humans are more adaptations (not permanent) such as more fat and melanin changes in colder climates and less fat reserves and darker pigmentation in hotter areas.
--
Boots
December 1st, 2004  
jasonparker
 
I belive that Archaeopteryx is a bird and it has nothing to do with transitional form. Below is a brief info about this subject:

ARCHÆOPTERYX AND OTHER ANCIENT BIRD FOSSILS
While evolutionists have for decades been proclaiming Archæopteryx to be the greatest evidence for their scenario concerning the evolution of birds, some recently-found fossils invalidate that scenario in other respects.
Lianhai Hou and Zhonghe Zhou, two paleontologists at the Chinese Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology, discovered a new bird fossil in 1995, and named it Confuciusornis. This fossil is almost the same age as Archæopteryx (around 140 million years), but has no teeth in its mouth. In addition, its beak and feathers shared the same features as today's birds. Confuciusornis has the same skeletal structure as modern birds, but also has claws on its wings, just like Archæopteryx. Another structure peculiar to birds called the "pygostyle", which supports the tail feathers, was also found in Confuciusornis. In short, this fossil-which is the same age as Archæopteryx, which was previously thought to be the earliest bird and was accepted as a semi-reptile-looks very much like a modern bird. This fact has invalidated all the evolutionist theses claiming Archæopteryx to be the primitive ancestor of all birds.
Another fossil unearthed in China, caused even greater confusion. In November 1996, the existence of a 130-million-year-old bird named Liaoningornis was announced in Science by L. Hou, L. D. Martin, and Alan Feduccia. Liaoningornis had a breastbone to which the muscles for flight were attached, just as in modern birds. This bird was indistinguishable from modern birds also in other respects, too. The only difference was the teeth in its mouth. This showed that birds with teeth did not possess the primitive structure alleged by evolutionists. This was stated in an article in Discover "Whence came the birds? This fossil suggests that it was not from dinasour stock".
Another fossil that refuted the evolutionist claims regarding Archæopteryx was Eoalulavis. The wing structure of Eoalulavis, which was said to be some 25 to 30 million years younger than Archæopteryx, was also observed in modern slow-flying birds. This proved that 120 million years ago, there were birds indistinguishable from modern birds in many respects flying in the skies.
These facts once more indicate for certain that neither Archæopteryx nor other ancient birds similar to it were transitional forms. The fossils do not indicate that different bird species evolved from each other. On the contrary, the fossil record proves that today's modern birds and some archaic birds such as Archæopteryx actually lived together at the same time. It is true that some of these bird species, such as Archæopteryx and Confuciusornis, have become extinct, but the fact that only some of the species that once existed have been able to survive down to the present day does not in itself support the theory of evolution.
In brief, several features of Archæopteryx indicate that this creature was not a transitional form. The overall anatomy of Archæopteryx imply stasis, not evolution. Paleontologist Robert Carroll has to admit that:
The geometry of the flight feathers of Archaeopteryx is identical with that of modern flying birds, whereas nonflying birds have symmetrical feathers. The way in which the feathers are arranged on the wing also falls within the range of modern birds… According to Van Tyne and Berger, the relative size and shape of the wing of Archaeopteryx are similar to that of birds that move through restricted openings in vegetation, such as gallinaceous birds, doves, woodcocks, woodpeckers, and most passerine birds… The flight feathers have been in stasis for at least 150 million years…
http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_de...hp?api_id=1245
December 2nd, 2004  
Doc.S
 
"To them that still think we have evolved from apes, I just say this if you try to touch me."

Get your dirty paws of me you filthy ape!

Cheers:
Doc.S
December 2nd, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
That's because we're getting more nutrition than ever before. It's happening in every country that has good access to food and healthcare. It's not really evolution. If a modern baby was given the exact same treatment and environment as the ancient cave men, his physique would end up being more like cave men too. Thicker, tougher bones, shorter but more powerful structure, less sophisticated brain and a very short life span.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiejohn

Machines, computers, mobile phones, environment, lifestyle, diet etc all have an effect on the human species over time.

Recent data has shown that Australian women are on average much taller, heavier, different shape, bigger boned than they were 70 years ago. OK, its not species change but its change non the less, and only just over 70 years. Imagine the changes over say the next 1000, 10,000, or 100,000 years. What will we look like? The mind boggles!!!
Archiopterix may have not been the direct ancestor of the modern bird but it is evidence of evolution all by itself and how need brings about similar designs, even if not related genetically. This is how the Hare and the Rabbit look very similar, but are not related.
December 2nd, 2004  
Young Winston
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonparker
I belive that Archaeopteryx is a bird and it has nothing to do with transitional form. Below is a brief info about this subject:

ARCHÆOPTERYX AND OTHER ANCIENT BIRD FOSSILS
While evolutionists have for decades been proclaiming Archæopteryx to be the greatest evidence for their scenario concerning the evolution of birds, some recently-found fossils invalidate that scenario in other respects.
Lianhai Hou and Zhonghe Zhou, two paleontologists at the Chinese Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology, discovered a new bird fossil in 1995, and named it Confuciusornis. This fossil is almost the same age as Archæopteryx (around 140 million years), but has no teeth in its mouth. In addition, its beak and feathers shared the same features as today's birds. Confuciusornis has the same skeletal structure as modern birds, but also has claws on its wings, just like Archæopteryx. Another structure peculiar to birds called the "pygostyle", which supports the tail feathers, was also found in Confuciusornis. In short, this fossil-which is the same age as Archæopteryx, which was previously thought to be the earliest bird and was accepted as a semi-reptile-looks very much like a modern bird. This fact has invalidated all the evolutionist theses claiming Archæopteryx to be the primitive ancestor of all birds.
Another fossil unearthed in China, caused even greater confusion. In November 1996, the existence of a 130-million-year-old bird named Liaoningornis was announced in Science by L. Hou, L. D. Martin, and Alan Feduccia. Liaoningornis had a breastbone to which the muscles for flight were attached, just as in modern birds. This bird was indistinguishable from modern birds also in other respects, too. The only difference was the teeth in its mouth. This showed that birds with teeth did not possess the primitive structure alleged by evolutionists. This was stated in an article in Discover "Whence came the birds? This fossil suggests that it was not from dinasour stock".
Another fossil that refuted the evolutionist claims regarding Archæopteryx was Eoalulavis. The wing structure of Eoalulavis, which was said to be some 25 to 30 million years younger than Archæopteryx, was also observed in modern slow-flying birds. This proved that 120 million years ago, there were birds indistinguishable from modern birds in many respects flying in the skies.
These facts once more indicate for certain that neither Archæopteryx nor other ancient birds similar to it were transitional forms. The fossils do not indicate that different bird species evolved from each other. On the contrary, the fossil record proves that today's modern birds and some archaic birds such as Archæopteryx actually lived together at the same time. It is true that some of these bird species, such as Archæopteryx and Confuciusornis, have become extinct, but the fact that only some of the species that once existed have been able to survive down to the present day does not in itself support the theory of evolution.
In brief, several features of Archæopteryx indicate that this creature was not a transitional form. The overall anatomy of Archæopteryx imply stasis, not evolution. Paleontologist Robert Carroll has to admit that:
The geometry of the flight feathers of Archaeopteryx is identical with that of modern flying birds, whereas nonflying birds have symmetrical feathers. The way in which the feathers are arranged on the wing also falls within the range of modern birds… According to Van Tyne and Berger, the relative size and shape of the wing of Archaeopteryx are similar to that of birds that move through restricted openings in vegetation, such as gallinaceous birds, doves, woodcocks, woodpeckers, and most passerine birds… The flight feathers have been in stasis for at least 150 million years…
http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_de...hp?api_id=1245
I think you better start reading the following. It will keep you very busy and make you think very deeply about things. Some of the material is quite scientifically challenging. Its not easy but don't give up.


http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/f...saur_links.htm


http://www.origins.tv/darwin/dinobirds.htm


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html

For Doc.S,

Have a look at the following

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

It's an easy place to start.
December 3rd, 2004  
Kinection
 
I'd like to point out to that evolution does not support the idea of humans evolving from Apes and Monkeys. Apes and Monkeys are evolutionary branches that evolved along with humans, with similar origins.
December 3rd, 2004  
Doc.S
 
Quote:
aussiejohn wrote:

For Doc.S,

Have a look at the following

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

It's an easy place to start.
aussiejohn - There is alot in the evolutionary teachings that I agree with, and I have no trouble at all to accept parts of them. But as it is with everything with science I have a hard time to see everything as hard fact and proof. Take the String-theory for an example. When I look at the apes I see a very close relation between our anatomi and theirs. Even on the DNA-strings but as we have seen under this year there have been new discoverys of old humanoid lifeforms on this earth that begin to break our old system and ideas of how our evolution begun and developed. I picked that ape quote from the Planet of the Apes movie btw. I have a very hard time at the moment to believe that we all are hairless chimpanzees, don´t take it literal, Im sure you catch my point. I dont believe in that theory because then we wouldn´t be the ones with mobile phones. All other apes on this planet would have evolved too but they havent in that perspective that we seems to have evolved. I wont take this issue any further because I think my theory is to much sci-fi to be honest, it needs more time. But I will keep it in mind untill there is science that can back up my statements when it comes to this theory of mine. I have been studying anatomi and watched autopsy´s of humans and animals and I can say that alot of what we have inside our bodys are similar to our neighbours, yes sir. But I dont take it for granted as the final answer - because I think there is so much more to know so I don´t want to jump to conclusions. There are to much loose threads to tie up in this particular question.

With respect:
Doc.S
December 3rd, 2004  
Young Winston
 
 
Yes, we ALL still have a lot to learn.

Some people on this topic have alot more to learn than others!

I can see you have been thinking pretty hard about this Doc.S.

One misconception about a scientific theory. For one to be accepted you do not need 100% proof. If a hypothesis is backed up by enough evidence then on statistical probability it can be accepted and a theory made. This is the scientific method (a very basic explanation!!).

If further evidence tends to weaken this theory then it may be changed or possibly rejected.

Evidence from all the sciences is overwhelming in favour of the evolutionary process. Certainly there is still disagreement on how the process happens. Unfortunately some groups use this disagreement to distort the argument by saying "Many scientist reject evolution!"


Have a look at these web sites on hominid fossils. There are many other great sites on evolution. People should not be scared to read through them. Some of the scientific terminology can be difficult but please stick at it!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

I am no expert but I do have an OPEN mind. I have read much of the creationist material on the subject.