Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."

[Kev]

Well clearly the story came first. Evolutionary belief has been around since the days of the ancient Greeks and Anaximander. Prior to Darwin Lamark was already postulating on it and Charles own grandfather Erasmus was part of some cult think tank called the Lunar Society that tried to create an evolutionary explantion for our origins.

...

If you believe in evolution that's fine for you, I have no interest in trying to 'convert' or dissuade you. I will just maintain however that as someone who has studied the debates on both sides for the last 15 years or so that evolutionary belief is the biggest myth of modern times with not a single piece of real evidence to support it.

Well then, that would mean that the story came first on "both sides" then.

I'm sure I said a few posts back that there were holes in the theory. But it's the best we have.

Obviously we disagree about what constitutes evidence, but so be it.

I also am familiar with both sides. I'm not sure we can limit this to two sides, but I wouldn't say the evidence of "your side" is any more convincing. But then again we don't agree about what is evidence, so that's a moot point too.

Life goes on.

I don't have a side though really. There are many theological problems that I have and as I said I'm not a church goer.

I reject macro evolution purely for scientific reasons, it's simply not science.

The problem is most laypeople are confused as to what is the difference between macro evolution and natural selection.

Everything Darwin found on the Galapagos Isles and his assertations about finches, lizards and tortoises adapting to fit their enviroment I agree with completely.

Organisms adapt over time to fit their enviroment, and successful traits are passed on, it's absolutely proven and beyond doubt, we witness it happening all the time.

However that is NOT macro evolution. All of the information required to make those changes was already present within the DNA of that species. Nothing new was added.

It's like a computer game or piece of software. The user can tinker around with all kinds of settings to customise it the way he wants, change the fonts, colour layout, add or remove certain features, change the resolution etc.

But unless he adds new material, i.e new lines of programming code he won't be able to add anything new or change the program beyond what the already preexisting code will allow.

DNA is exactly the same. A dog can be bred to be all different size and shapes, to exhibit different kinds of behaviour etc but it can never ever ever grow wings because there simply isn't any coding in its DNA for wings, it will always, no matter how much it changes, remain a dog.

The fossil record literally screams this at us. When a creature appears in the fossil record it appears complete and fully formed, and identical to its descendents today with no trace of any evolutionary lineage whatsoever.

The best examples they have are whales or snakes with tiny bones they try and claim are vestigial legs or a bird that has teeth and is hence reptillian.

These just highlight how much they are clutching at straws.

Imagine if dinosaurs really did evolve over millions of years into birds. So we have 200 million years worth of dinosaur fossils, and 150 million years worth of bird fossils.

But for all the millions of years in between we have nothing. An entire animal group of dinobirds that must have lived on this planet for millions of years all over the world is completely missing.

And now they are going to any lengths possible to try and find this missing dinobird even to the extent of falling for the biggest hoax of modern times when the National Geographic unveiled to us Archaeoraptor in the nineties, the missing link proving beyond doubt that dinosaurs are birds. Then it turns out it was actually two seperate fossils glued together by a Chinese man selling hoax fossils for profit. In fact its a huge industry now, especially in China and Liaoning where every villager is now skilled at finding fossils and 'enhancing' them to sell to the Paelontologists.

We are told that there was once a bear like creature that went back to the sea and became the whales. Again sadly this entire millions of years period has left no evidence and we can't find the bear or any of his descendants.

The whole thing is a big bust. The more we learn about molecular biology the more we know things can't just spontaneously develop new information in their DNA.

We scoff at the idea that the ancients used to believe maggots and flies spontaneously appeared from decaying flesh and carcasses but we still believe in the spontaneous generation of life becuase scientists have somehow convinced us it did happen, but just once and billions of years ago.

None of this is science, and the evidence you keep talking about (for macro evolution) simply doesn't exist.

This has nothing to do with a religious stance, it's a purely scientific position.

Show me the actual scientific evidence that proves evolution and we can discuss it piece by piece.