Joined: Oct. 2005
|Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,10:56)|
|I don't know if evolutionists NEED evolution or not.|
What I said was Evolutionist NEED Deep Time.
Dave, when are you going to address the fact that you need deep time, too? How does your "hypothesis" account for the supposed ultra-mega-hyper-macroevolution implied by the explosion (which, by the way, dwarfs the "Cambrian Explosion") of diversity from several tens of thousands of species to tens of millions of species in less than five thousand years? Another "miracle"?
And frankly, Dave, I'm not sure where you think you're going with this obsession with evolution "needing" deep time? So what? The time is available; in fact, more time than necessary is available.
|Genetic sequences prove this. Why?|
Because if it takes 5-8 my to go from the Ape/human LCA to modern humans, then, by extrapolation, knowing that chimps and humans differ by only 1.5%, we know that it must take about 43 times this long to go from bacteria to modern humans. 43 x 5 = 215 my. 43 x 8 = 344 my. So you need at least 200 MY to get from a bacteria to a modern human.
Dave, you might want to stop posting arguments that refute your other arguments. You claim that you can get from bacteria to humans in 344 my (a number, by the way, that no evolutionary biologist would agree with, because it's way too small). So if you can get from bacteria to humans in less than 500 million years, why do geologists claim the earth is 4.55 billion years old, which nine times older? Just to be on the safe side? If you think geologists conspire with evolutionary biologists in order to make the numbers come out right, why don't they just say the earth is only a billion years old? According to your reasoning, that's way more time than necessary to get from bacteria to humans, right?
|Eric says that very little evolved in the first 2 billion years or so ... not sure why. Did it take that long for the bacteria to "get lonely" and wish they had some higher life forms to share the planet with? Hmmmm...|
The honest answer here is that no one knows for sure (which I'm sure you see as a huge, gaping hole in the theory, but that's just because you know fuck-all about how science works). But given the simplicity of bacteria, it's not hard to understand how it could take a long time for them to evolve into anything more complicated. Think of it as a learning curve, Dave. Humans developed the wheel when? Several thousand years ago? There were nothing but livestock-powered wheeled vehicles for thousands of years; then, suddenly, in less than a hundred years, we went from horse-and-buggy to 1,000-horsepower Bugatis than can do 250 mph.
|Anyway, the chart is great because it shouldn't be as it is if evolution were true. Some of the organisms on that chart should be genetically closer to or farther from bacteria than they are simply because they are supposedly in the line of ancestry leading up to modern humans.|
Dave, you dolt, the chart confims evolutionary theory. What it disconfirms is your bad, wrong, broken misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Yeast and humans diverged not long after all eukaryotes diverged from bacteria. As I just said this morning, every single organism on your chart is equally distant from bacteria! Mushrooms are no more closely related to bacteria than humans are. Is that so hard to understand? Or are you deliberately failing to understand it?
|So geochronologists select or reject dates to conform to the Grand Evo Fairy Tale.|
Now please ... tell me how am I mistaken?
Why, Dave? Because they want to support their buddies? If the geochronologists back in the 30s said, gee guys, all the dates we come up all converge on 75 million years, what do you suppose would have happened? Do you think the evolutionary biologists bribed them to change their story?
And are you still under the misapprehension that geologists—any kind of geologists—are "evolutionists"?
And you still haven't explained why all the available dates converge on a value that by your own reasoning is almost an order of magnitude larger than it needs to be.
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity
"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams