Do you believe in inequality?

[Amaranthus]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5577724/Moth-turns-from-black-to-white-as-Britains-polluted-skies-change-colour.html

 

The most famous modern example.

 

The only way you can not believe that evolution is occurring now is to wilfully ignore the examples and evidence.

 

That so does NOT prove evolution and can easily be explained away...

 

The moths were already black and white, with each moth having a slightly different ratio of black to white. The moths with more white were being eaten more often than the moths with more black. Therefore the moths with more black bred more and moths with even more black were produced etc., etc., which is a case of natural selection NOT evolution. The moths did not change into lizards.

[Suffragette1]

What about someone who has an IQ of 40, eats mud, and considers the comedy of Benny Hill too complexly layered to be enjoyable?

 

I'd consider them to be very different to me (although perhaps not on the IQ score:hihi:) but not unequal.

 

Variety is the spice of life, after all. Life would be very dull without diversity.

[flamingjimmy]

That so does NOT prove evolution and can easily be explained away...

 

The moths were already black and white, with each moth having a slightly different ratio of black to white. The moths with more white were being eaten more often than the moths with more black. Therefore the moths with more black bred more and moths with even more black were produced etc., etc., which is a case of natural selection NOT evolution. The moths did not change into lizards.

 

Evolution does not say that insects turn into lizards. They are on opposite sides of the tree of life.

 

And natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. Tiny little changes, just over millions of years.

 

How do you explain this?

Is it just a coincidence that we find their fossils in this order?

 

Think about it, if you look at fossils from 60 million years ago, you will find absolutely no whale fossils, nothing that even looks remotely like a whale, nada, zilch, they just aren't there.

 

Look at fossils from 45 million years ago and you see these wierd sort of hippo like things who's legs have got really short and almost look like fins.

 

Then look at fossils from 30 million years ago, or even go on a boat trip, and you will see whales.

 

Where did they come from, if they aren't the descendants of these weird half hippo half whale things?

[Amaranthus]

Evolution does not say that insects turn into lizards. They are on opposite sides of the tree of life.

 

And natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. Tiny little changes, just over millions of years.

 

How do you explain this?

Is it just a coincidence that we find their fossils in this order?

 

Think about it, if you look at fossils from 60 million years ago, you will find absolutely no whale fossils, nothing that even looks remotely like a whale, nada, zilch, they just aren't there.

 

Look at fossils from 45 million years ago and you see these wierd sort of hippo like things who's legs have got really short and almost look like fins.

 

Then look at fossils from 30 million years ago, or even go on a boat trip, and you will see whales.

 

Where did they come from, if they aren't the descendants of these weird half hippo half whale things?

 

That's weak coming from someone who always demands proof for every statement. I could have drawn that. Show me each and every skeleton in that picture and tell me where I can go visit it in person. Then prove to me that each of those creatures remains actually come from those periods. THEN prove to me that each of those variety of species don't all exist now/ have ever existed at the same time.

[flamingjimmy]

That's weak coming from someone who always demands proof for every statement. I could have drawn that. Show me each and every skeleton in that picture and tell me where I can go visit it in person. Then prove to me that each of those creatures remains actually come from those periods. THEN prove to me that each of those variety of species don't all exist now/ have ever existed at the same time.

 

Wait that's your response?

 

You're saying that it's fraud. That the scientists made it all up and drew that picture. That is quite astounding, the conspiracy would have to involve almost every paleontologist who's worked in the last 150 years, frankly, it's completely ridiculous.

 

VEry well though, I will indulge you, although don't think I'm gonna bother doing too much research, this stuff is really easy to find. Here's what approximately 30 seconds of googling has got me.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ambulocetus_et_pakicetus.jpg

That right there is a mammalian crocodile thing sitting next to it's ancestor.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maiacetus.jpg

Here's another one from a few million years later, notice how it's slightly more dolphin/whale like.

 

As for the dating, yet again, the only way that could be wrong is if there were a conspiracy involving almost every single paleontologist of the last 150 years. There's carbon dating, various other methods of radio isotope dating. There's the simple method of looking at what's buried on top of what. Importantly all these different methods yield the same results, they independently confirm each other. Have a little read.

 

"The rejection of dating by religious fundamentalists is easier for them to make, but harder for them to demonstrate. The fossils occur in regular sequences time after time; radioactive decay happens, and repeated cross testing of radiometric dates confirms their validity."

 

There really is no doubt about anything I said in my last post.

[Amaranthus]

So according to this, I'm guessing this link you provided is supposed to relate to the Mysticeti and this is supposed to relate to the Ambulocetidae; to me the skeletons look very similar whereas the pictures in the first link look very different; the Maiacetus skeleton still has feet whereas the Mysticeti in the other picture clearly has fins (unless the skeleton links you provided are not anywhere on the scale of the first link).

 

Next you will have to bestow upon me the virtues of carbon dating I'm afraid.

[Harleyman]

Whether based on gender, race, creed or even intelligence. Any criteria.

 

Are there people on here willing to admit they believe certain types of people should be considered superior?

 

A controversial subject matter I know, but it's important that people feel comfortable expressing their views and I'm genuinely interested in such views.

 

What makes a certain group superior to another?

 

 

Depends what you mean by superior. Superior in what?

 

Academics, athletics, the arts?

 

A university professor might be superior in intellect but would be left in the dust by an Olympic runner

 

An engineer might be superior in mechanical matters but couldn't play a note on the piano or do a prize winning oil painting

 

A lot of people in the world are born with a genetic inheritance/makeup that enables them to be outstanding or superior in various ways. Born with a natural gift in other words

 

If you're talking about "racial superiority" that's something I've never really believed in

[flamingjimmy]

So according to this, I'm guessing this link you provided is supposed to relate to the Mysticeti and this is supposed to relate to the Ambulocetidae; to me the skeletons look very similar whereas the pictures in the first link look very different; the Maiacetus skeleton still has feet whereas the Mysticeti in the other picture clearly has fins (unless the skeleton links you provided are not anywhere on the scale of the first link).

I didn't realise you were qualified to identify fossils, you'd better get in touch with the top dogs at the natural history museum, surely they'll give you a job with those skills.

 

Next you will have to bestow upon me the virtues of carbon dating I'm afraid.

 

Perhaps you should've paid attention at school and I wouldn't have to, I'm done indulging you, do you own research or remain ignorant, it's your choice. I'm going out:)

 

It's really quite boring arguing with somebody who's only point is 'teh scientists are all lying!!! lol'

[Amaranthus]

I didn't realise you were qualified to identify fossils, you'd better get in touch with the top dogs at the natural history museum, surely they'll give you a job with those skills.

 

 

 

Perhaps you should've paid attention at school and I wouldn't have to, I'm done indulging you, do you own research or remain ignorant, it's your choice. I'm going out:)

 

More a case of I don't believe everything I read or take it for face value. Mr Proof has declined to provide anything convincing... what a surprise. And you are hypocritical enough to mock my beliefs without knowing much about them as well. Typical.

[Amaranthus]

It's really quite boring arguing with somebody who's only point is 'teh scientists are all lying!!! lol'

 

I made many different points during the course of this thread. You have chosen to pick ONE and used it to discredit everything else I've said. Perhaps you should read ALL my posts jimmy and take them all into account if you want to have a reasonable discussion. Just advice for next time you want to lock horns as I'm done as well.