More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

[Sherlock Holmes]

You'll notice Sherlock Holmes didn't touch this meaty piece of evidence of Evo.
Instead he posts a ridicKulous two skeletons hoping people would make errors as to their origin/relationship.
An idiot's riddle.

He's always playing Dishonest little semantic games, but never refuting (or even casting any serious doubt) on Evo. Nor showing any evidence for a Deity.

Empty POS with irrelevant philosophical and semantic games.
This thread is tangible MEAT/Evidence and he wants no part of it.

`

Please stick to the topic, enough ad-hominem, let people decide for themselves the integrity or want thereof of my posts.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

To all: I assure you he is lying, nor will he be answering the question in this thread.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Same here, enough personal attacking. If you cannot state your case without also making personal accusations then that seems to me that you don't have much of a case at all.

He's a creationist troll.



That's because he's a tinkerer and not a scientist.

Scientists have open minds. He doesn't.



Physics says "all possible paths". That's fundamental to the quantum theory. Therefore vestiges are "expected", it would be very surprising if they didn't exist.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

That's right, it is. Because the consensus of scientists arises from the consensus of the evidence. They go where the evidence takes them.

This is not true actually, all evidence is interpreted and it is the interpretation of evidence that is where the evolution consensus lies, not the evidence itself, the evolutionists share an interpretation of evidence, and there is often more than one way to interpret observations.

Some of us interpret the Cambrian explosion, the absence of expected fossil evidence, as evidence of absence (i.e. there really were no ancestors) and some - like you - interpret it differently.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Still going...

What would the "direct link" look like? Describe some of its properties.

Then I will see if I can accommodate your request.

This simple question separates the frauds like you from honest actors.

you once linked a chart that showed all the supposed connections of man to an apelike creature. And I noted correctly that it had gaping holes and massive timeline separation on its supposed links. I assume you won't link that because it of course proves my point.
Link a linear chart from when the apelike creature appeared and connects to the rise of man.

I argue that neanderthal is the first appearance of man. and that you can't link him to any apelike creature.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is not true actually, all evidence is interpreted and it is the interpretation of evidence that is where the evolution consensus lies, not the evidence itself.

100% false. This is overly general lie meant to cast doubt on any and all scientific knowledge.

You have no good arguments against the truth of evolution, so you use useless rhetoric like this designed to cast doubt on all knowledge.

There is no interpretation to be found in good evidence. That's the entire point.

It's not an interpretation, or a preference, that mRNA shows common descent.

Measurements show this. Objectively.

This is one of the four very tired charlatan's tactics that the creationists use.


Nowadays, you will only find them doing this on message boards and to children. Because this charlatan's tactic was long ago laughed out of the room by scientists and serious people.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

you once linked a chart that showed all the supposed connections of man to an apelike creature. And I noted correctly that it had gaping holes and massive timeline separation on its supposed links. I assume you won't link that because it of course proves my point.
Link a linear chart from when the apelike creature appeared and connects to the rise of man.

I argue that neanderthal is the first appearance of man. and that you can't link him to any apelike creature.

Still going... and getting even wordier, as if that is supposed to somehow make us forget you are simply dodging a simple question.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

100% false. This is overly general lie meant to cast doubt on any and all scientific knowledge.

You have no good arguments against the truth of evolution, so you use useless rhetoric like this designed to cast doubt on all knowledge.

There is no interpretation to be found in good evidence. That's the entire point.

It's not an interpretation, or a preference, that mRNA shows common descent.

Measurements show this. Objectively.

This is one of the four very tired charlatans tactics that the creationists use.

Nowadays, you will only find them doing this on message boards and to children. Because this charlatan's tactic was long ago laughed out of the room by scientists and serious people.

MRNA has every mammal similar to every other mammal. Hell if we went by that we could be linked to pigs for example.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Still going... and getting even wordier, as if that is supposed to somehow make us forget you are simply dodging a simple question.

cant link I see even when I tell you what you want.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And notice the charlatans reserve this dimestore parlor tricks ONLY for scientific knowledge that contradicts their magical fetishes.

You never see them using this rhetoric.to cast doubt on quantum mechanics. Or relativity.

It's a parlor trick. A carney's gift. Nothing more.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Hell if we went by that we could be linked to pigs for example.

We do. And we are.

You don't seem to know anything at all about any of this.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

100% false. This is overly general lie meant to cast doubt on any and all scientific knowledge.

You have no good arguments against the truth of evolution, so you use useless rhetoric like this designed to cast doubt on all knowledge.

There is no interpretation to be found in good evidence. That's the entire point.

Well our discussion pretty much proves you wrong, I just told you that I interpret the absence of credible ancestor fossils as being due to them never existing, you insist they did exist but we have no trace of their fossils - right there are two very different interpretations.

It's not an interpretation, or a preference, that mRNA shows common descent.

Measurements show this. Objectively.

This is one of the four very tired charlatans tactics that the creationists use.

Nowadays, you will only find them doing this on message boards and to children. Because this charlatan's tactic was long ago laughed out of the room by scientists and serious people.

Again, this is tiresome, if you cannot make your case without launching a character assassination of your opponent then you don't have much of a case at all.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

cant link I see even when I tell you what you want.

You have not done that.

Describe some properties of this "direct link" that you are (shamelessly lying and) saying will convince you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You have not done that.

Describ3le some properties of this "direct link" that you are (shamelessly lying and) saying will convince you.

already told you what to do that you can't proves my point.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well our discussion pretty much proves you wrong,

Your own words, posted an quoted, show I am spot on.

As already described. And the description was so good, you had to ignore it and find new rhetoric.

Again, this is tiresome, if you cannot make your case without launching a character assassination

Excuse you. I both made my case and described your tired charlatan's tactics.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

already told you what to do that you can't proves my point.

False. You have not described any properties of the direct link.

Now on page 4. As predicted.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

False. You have not described any properties of the direct link.

Now on page 4. As predicted.

keep dodging.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Lie.

What's a lie? are you now saying you interpret the Cambrian the same way as me?

Excuse you. I both made my case and described your tired charlatan's tactics.

You can't make your case unless you also discredit me, a good strong scientific arguments stands on its own feet, you discredit me because the strength of your argument is weak and you won't get others to accept it unless you color their perception of me, it's a weak case, totally fumbling, like you even dispute that evidence is interpreted; well let the open minded visitor decide for themselves.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

keep dodging.

Haha, that's not going to work for you. You're entire baby hissy fit to avoid the question relies on the claim that there is no evidence that can be posted.

Which makes you look very immature and ignorant.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

are you now saying you interpret the Cambrian the same way as me?

A non sequitur, meant to convolute and direct the original material into a different direction not or8ginally intended by either person.

Yawn. Your tactics are so tired. You and Seymour flops should be locked in a room together, where you might be able to create a rhetorical wormhole to another dimension.

You can't make your case unless you also discredit me

A weird little lie, as my case did not rely on mocking your tactics at all. That was bonus material.