Talk:Evidence of common descent/Archive-Trolling

Faults of Evolution
Evolutionism is merely a theory. You people understand this right?

"just how fins developed into limbs is still a mystery-but they did".-E.A. Hooton, Evolutionist.

"There is...no fossil evidence bearing on the question of insect origin".-Frank M. Carpenter, Evolutionist


 * In science, theory means that it is well supported by the evidence. Thanks for the contribution. I'm sure scientists will continue to study the gaps in our knowledge which you point out for some time yet. Jefffire 23:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And it appears that you have confused the coloquial conception of a theory (meaning little more than a thought or idea) with the scientific definition of theory (an explination for recorded events). It's a common mistake, so I'm just giving you a heads up. -- Majin Gojira 01:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that...

"just how fins developed into limbs is still a mystery-but they did".-E.A. Hooton, Evolutionist.

does not even meet the qualifications to receive the grandeur title 'theory'. Let us instead refer to it as a hypothesis.

Since evolution is not science, ( knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method; Merrian-Webster ), by the strict definition of the term, we cannot consider it to be fact. To do so it must follow the scientific method of being testable, demonstarable, and observable.

The same is considered of creationism.

One must then form an opinion based on which theory posesses the most demonstatable evidence. To call one idea false and another truth is to believe one or the other as a religion, or have proved ones believed theory empirically correct. So until we can spontaneously produce life from a rock or the Rapture occurs, let us continue to search for the truth, without using faulty findings or beliefs as evidence. To do so IS NOT science. EParadigm 09:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This post hurts my head. It is written for the sole purpose of inciting pointless ageold creationist arguements against evolution.  This is amptly shown by the fact that each point the writer used is a basic fallacy pointed out in the Creation-evolution controversy article.  The above article shows quite clearly that the writer has no clue what the theory of evolution is and what the evidence that supports this theory is.  It is rather sad that people will disagree about evolution out of pure ignorance rather than read up on the topic (both from scientific and creationist sources) and then make a decent post.--Roland Deschain 06:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Even a evolutionist admitted that the fossil record does not support evolution
Even a evolutionist admitted that the fossil record does not support evolution. I cite the following: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831 ken 19:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo


 * Ken, stop jumping from page to page trying to throw creationist quote mines around. That one is in fact such an old quote mine that it is even listed in the quote mine project here. Stop being disruptive. JoshuaZ 19:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ridley said what he said regarding the fossil record. What he says about other supposed evidences of evolution in no way invalidates what he said about the fossil record. ken 19:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
 * Ridley did NOT say that "the fossil record does not support evolution". It certainly does.  But it isn't needed to support evolution (almost all of it was discovered after Darwin published), as evolution can be deduced entirely from the other abundant evidence that Ridley mentioned. --Robert Stevens 17:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Non Creationist biology failed
I believe when one does a review of the scientific literature, one can see that non creationist biology failed. I think this should be incorporated in the article. 136.183.146.158 03:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you must have made a mistake with the link - you linked to some out-of-context quote mining, not a review of any scientific literature. Guettarda 04:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Guettarda, please don't merely assert the quotes were out of context. Please demonstrate it.  I don't believe you can.  136.183.146.158 05:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The quotes are provides with no context on a wiki. They are, by definition out of context.  Anyway, whether they are in context or out of context, you have linked to quote mining not a discussion of the literature.  So, regardless of whether they are in context or out of context, the assertion that they are "a review of the scientific literature" is false.  Guettarda 05:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe the quotes are quite damning to the macroevolutionary position as can be readily seen. You will not be able to obscure this matter. 136.183.146.158 05:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So are you saying that they are not a discussion of the literature, as you claimed above?
 * As for the quotes themselves - lets see the Crick quote is a typical dishonest quote mine in which his statement is taken out of context to make it look like he is saying something other than he is actually saying. Standard dishonest deception.  There is nothing in the Morris article to suggest that there is some "failure" in biology, so I have no idea what the point is to that quote.  I'm not sure what a decade-old quote from Maynard Smith & Szathmary is supposed to say about challenges to modern biology.  Johnson comments on the Crick quote, which is a misleading quote-mine.  A twenty-year-old quote from Eldredge says nothing about modern biology.  Ditto two 24-year-old quote from Thomson.  There's nothing to obscure - the quotes don't say anything except that some creationists are dishonest...and that isn't news.  Guettarda 06:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I still do not believe you will be able to obscure the fact that the quotes are quite damning to the macroevolutionary position. 136.183.146.158 06:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To make it simple, there is nothing in that link about biology failing as you have stated. There must be some mistake. Meggar 06:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Biology didn't fail. Non creationists biology failed.  136.183.146.158 06:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Antibiotic resistent bacteria are not evidence for evolution
I believe the articles entitled Superbugs not super after all by Carl Wieland shows that antibiotic resistent bacteria are not good evidence for the macroevolutionary position. Also, the article entitled The "Evolution" of Antibiotic Resistance by Daniel Criswell, Ph.D. shows that antiobiotic resistence is not good evidence for the evolutionary position. I think the information in these articles should be incorporated in the Wikipedia article. 136.183.146.158 03:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Wieland article has a section names "Natural selection, but not evolution" - what, pray tell, is natural selection supposed to do if it doesn't alter allele frequencies? The Criswell article says "In 1980 it was estimated that 3-5% of S. pneumoniae were penicillin-resistant and by 1998, 34% of the S. pneumoniae sampled were resistant to penicillin" - changes in allele frequencies = evolution.  These articles actually present evidenc of evolution, not evidence against evolution, even though they dishonestly claim otherwise.  Guettarda 04:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Guettarda, I don't believe you adequately addressed the creationists criticisms in the articles. 136.183.146.158 05:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What is there to address? The articles are systematically dishonest and deceptive.  Why should we waste our time with deception?  Guettarda 05:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you demonstrated the articles are deceptive. 136.183.146.158 05:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then maybe you should read what I wrote. The authors are bold-facedly lying.  Lying is dishonest.  Lying with the aim of misleading believers is clearly deception.  Guettarda 05:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it would be a lot more constructive if you focused on the creationist criticisms in the articles and did not throw out assertions you do not demonstrate. 136.183.146.158 05:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What criticisms? The "criticisms" are premised on false claims.  There's nothing to address but lies.  Guettarda 05:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As above - Daniel Criswell (is he notable ?) is presenting pseudoscience. In the begining he has lots of facts regarding how bacteria are showing increasing Antibiotic Resistance and then he says in the last para that "The accumulation of mutations doesn't lead to a new kind of bacterium—it leads to extinction." In a roundabout way he trys to prove his hypothesis that "...resistance is a designed feature of pre-existing genes enabling bacteria to compete with the antibiotic producers in their environment.". Unfortunately that one sentence makes this paper pseudoscience. Ttiotsw 07:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Why was the anti-evolutionary homology link removed?
Why was the anti-evolutionary homology link removed? I believe the article entitled [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp Does homology provide evidence of evolutionary naturalism? by Dr. Jerry Bergman] shows that homology is not evidence for the evolutionary position. I think this link should be incorporated in the Wikipedia article since homology is said to be evidence for the macroevolutionary position. 136.183.146.158 06:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Because it's crap. Guettarda 18:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)