🚀 go-pugleaf

Sam Stone wrote:
> 
> Bama Brian wrote:
> > Sam Stone wrote:
> >
> >> Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >>
> >>>> them, among other evidence. "Micro-Evolution," or change of genes
> >>>> within
> >>>> species, is possible, however, as the breeding of dogs and the Bible
> >>>> itself
> >>>> attest.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> **Altering of genes within a species, IS evolution.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes it is, and huge gaps in the fossil record belie claims of a
> >> complete  evolutionary progression for many of the species known as
> >> native to this planet.
> >
> >
> > Why is that so many so-called Christian educators, including the pastors
> > consider it fair game to lie to their flocks about evolution?  Are they
> > just willfully uninformed, or do they do it deliberately?
> >
> > The fossil records for a given species may, or may not be, complete -
> > but enough complete fossil records exist for enough species to prove
> > that evolution exists and is at work all of the time.
> >
> > Item:  "EVOLUTION OF MODERN CATS (SUMMARY)"
> 
> Man is not a cat.

Well you got something right. But cats and humans both evolved.
 
> http://www.rae.org/lucyknee.html
> 
> Let's really reflect on what transpired here:
> 1. Johanson offered "proof" that Lucy sired humans consisting of a
> robust femur and pelvis; and a knee with "humanlike" characteristics.
> 
> 2. Only under questioning did he admit that the knee was found over a
> mile from Lucy. To the best of our knowledge this admission has not
> appeared in print!. Roy did not ask the question because he already knew
> the answer, but because of the suspicions of M. Bowden, a British
> scientist. Many articles and drawings of the discovery site make no
> mention of the distance whatsoever and absolutely lead the reader to the
> wrong conclusion about their relative positions!!! Java-man revisited.
> 
> 3. Confronted with the assertion that skeletal similarity (homology)
> between animals does not prove ancestral relationship, he changed the
> subject to molecular homology (DNA similarities).
> 
> 4. Faced with Dr. Patterson's contention that molecular homology was
> proof that evolution was anti-science and anti-knowledge, Johanson
> simply resorted to dogma: "If you don't believe in homology, you don't
> believe in evolution...", which means to him that you don't believe in
> facts. Presumably Dr. Patterson does not believe in facts either,
> because he certainly does not have any kind words for molecular homology.
> 
> What transpired here, then, is that Johanson gave a clear demonstration
> of our assertion that evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with
> science. Belief in evolution has to do with a humanist religious
> viewpoint (Humanism is the religion of all who have chosen to believe
> man rather than God). Johanson not only used bones scattered over a mile
> apart, he presented an argument he should know to be false. As an
> anthropologist Johanson should be fully aware that a large hip joint
> does not prove upright posture, much less does it prove higher
> intelligence or the ability to sire a human. Remember, he gets paid for
> this stuff. By any reasonable standard Johanson misrepresented the
> evidence . . . and he did so for money! A businessman who made claims
> like this to sell his products would be charged with fraud rather than
> paid an honorarium!
> When confronted with an informed challenge, Johanson did not resort to
> evidence or reason, but to dogma (evolution is a fact). He closed the
> meeting with the standard humanistic altar call, "Join us scientists in
> controlling our destiny and in bringing about world peace."

Pleeze. Quit spreading the creationists' lies.

 http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC003.html
 Claim CC003:
 The knee of the "Lucy" fossil (the most complete Australopithecus
 afarensis fossil) was found over a mile away from the rest of the skeleton,
 so it can't be used as evidence that Lucy walked upright. That
 evolutionists have never admitted this fact in print shows their
 dishonesty.

 Response:
 1. The claim is false. The skeleton called Lucy does not have an intact
 knee. A different, isolated knee fossil was found two to three kilometers
 away [Johanson and Edey 1981]. Confusion over the two fossils apparently
 led to the false claim.

 2. Far from indicating evolutionist dishonesty, this claim shows how
 creationists fail to check their claims [Lippard 1999]. 


 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html

 Creationists have been making the claim that Donald Johanson found the
 knee joint of "Lucy," a 40%-complete skeleton of the species
 Australopithecus afarensis, in a location "Sixty to seventy meters
 lower in the strata and two to three kilometers away" (Willis 1987).
 They have sometimes gone on to add the claim that "Only under
 questioning did [Johanson] admit that the knee was found over a mile
 from Lucy. To the best of our knowledge this admission has not appeared
 in print!" (Willis 1987; emphasis in original; Also see Brown 1989a, p.
 44) The claim is used by creationists to show that (a) evolutionists
 are dishonest and (b) "Lucy" did not walk upright. It successfully shows
 neither of these things, because it is false. (Even if it were true, it
 would not demonstrate (b), for reasons given in Lippard (1989-90)--the
 knee joint is not the only evidence of bipedality in A. afarensis.)

 The claim is not only false, it is clearly shown to be false in
 Johanson's published writings about "Lucy" (e.g., Johanson and Edey 1981,
 ch. 7-8) and it has been pointed out repeatedly to its proponents that it
 is false. Despite this, none of the major proponents of the claim has
 publicly retracted it. One major proponent has privately agreed that it
 is false, and a few creationists have agreed to stop repeating it. One
 minor proponent made a public retraction.

 The claim originated with Tom Willis, head of the Creation Science
 Association for Mid-America, in an article he wrote for the Bible-Science
 Newsletter (1987). In his article, Willis reported on a lecture by
 Johanson at the University of Missouri on November 20, 1986. Willis
 reported that the following exchange occurred during the question-and-answer
 session which followed Johanson's lecture:

    Q. How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?
    A. Sixty to seventy meters lower in the strata and two to three kilometers
       away.

 This question was perhaps intended by the questioner to mean "How far away
 from Lucy did you find Lucy's knee?", but was clearly interpreted by Johanson
 to mean "How far away from Lucy did you find the 1973 knee joint?" Willis
 does not recognize the confusion in his article, even though the discoveries
 of both the original knee joint (1973) and Lucy (1974) are described in
 detail--including the locations of the finds--in Donald C. Johanson and
 Maitland E. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (1981) and in the
 articles in the April 1982 issue of the American Journal of Physical
 Anthropology. The creationist misunderstanding would never have occurred had
 either of these sources been consulted. Johanson's writings have always been
 clear about the fact that his 1973 knee joint was a separate find from Lucy.
 All of the bones shown in photographs of Lucy were found at a single location.
 ...