Of birds and men. Covergent evolution.

[tas8831]

Did you read the article? It was a review article with references that contain the evidence. And the evidence is supportive and extensive and some is very technical but with careful reading can be understood.

There's the problem - Deeje, despite claims of years of study, cannot understand and therefore thinks that "jargon" is a means of the educated and intelligent to hide 'real facts' from the uneducated yet certain. Deeje has whined about the use of "jargon" 91 times on this forum since 2016 - she obsesses over it and uses it to hide the fact that she has nothing of scientific merit to offer (or understand).
Her first time using it:

Organic evolution is taught as fact, couched in scientific jargon, and promoted as fact to the world. Scientists themselves are pressured into accepting it, fearful that their reputations will be ruined if they question it.​

Note the hackneyed nonsense paranoia and accusations.
Funniest part - right after that, she posted a Youtube video about animals that "defy evolution" that had no facts in it...

Her most recent use of it, today:

May 26, 2020:

I know enough to not need the scientific jargon to understand words that imply doubt in the English language.....you don't have to be a genius to understand that suggestions are not facts.
​

These people are amazing. Amazingly predictable, amazingly under-informed, amazingly over-confident.

​

 

[tas8831]

I think science has some serious explaining to do......

Odd that these people never seem to think that they need to offer any explanations beyond 'My Favorite Deity Did It as depicted in my favorite iteration of ancient tall tales that have no evidence for their fantastic aspects at all'...

 

[tas8831]

'Lab work to my way of thinking is just people in white coats looking to confirm what they want the results to show. They read the evidence in a way that confirms their bias.

And your paranoid and cynical "understanding" of science/lab work is tainted by the fact that your cult brainwashes the under-informed - such as yourself - to think that way.
This is how the cult beliefs are maintained - by denigrating and dismissing anything that is not supportive of the cult beliefs, not because the cult beliefs are true.

 

[Heyo]

I think science has some serious explaining to do......

Would you be willing to listen?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There's the problem - Deeje, despite claims of years of study, cannot understand and therefore thinks that "jargon" is a means of the educated and intelligent to hide 'real facts' from the uneducated yet certain. Deeje has whined about the use of "jargon" 91 times on this forum since 2016 - she obsesses over it and uses it to hide the fact that she has nothing of scientific merit to offer (or understand).
Her first time using it:

Organic evolution is taught as fact, couched in scientific jargon, and promoted as fact to the world. Scientists themselves are pressured into accepting it, fearful that their reputations will be ruined if they question it.​

Note the hackneyed nonsense paranoia and accusations.
Funniest part - right after that, she posted a Youtube video about animals that "defy evolution" that had no facts in it...

Her most recent use of it, today:

May 26, 2020:

I know enough to not need the scientific jargon to understand words that imply doubt in the English language.....you don't have to be a genius to understand that suggestions are not facts.
​

These people are amazing. Amazingly predictable, amazingly under-informed, amazingly over-confident.

​

Yep. I asked her once what it is that she hopes to accomplish by being so persistent in NOT correcting her mistakes, no matter how many times they are pointed out to her.

In her thread where she tries to pretend that creation and evolution are both "just opinions" that are equally valid somehow, I think I must have explained to her at least 10 times how species never jump branches, never outgrow their ancestry, never evolve into a "different kind" of animals... how there is a "law" in evolution sometimes called the law of monophy, which says exactly that: you can't outgrow your ancestry. Once a mammal, always a mammal. Once an eukaryote, always an eukaryote.

It's one ear in and out the other.
The reason I had to repeat it so much was simply because she kept making the same mistake over and over and over again. I corrected her and not more then 2 posts later there she was... repeating the same nonsense that had just been corrected.


According to Einstein, I must be insane...
Trying the same thing over and over again while expecting different results

I've long since given up on expecting different results though.
No matter how many times she is informed of her strawman... She'll always insist on being wrong, it seems.

 

[tas8831]

Yep. I asked her once what it is that she hopes to accomplish by being so persistent in NOT correcting her mistakes, no matter how many times they are pointed out to her.

In her thread where she tries to pretend that creation and evolution are both "just opinions" that are equally valid somehow, I think I must have explained to her at least 10 times how species never jump branches, never outgrow their ancestry, never evolve into a "different kind" of animals... how there is a "law" in evolution sometimes called the law of monophy, which says exactly that: you can't outgrow your ancestry. Once a mammal, always a mammal. Once an eukaryote, always an eukaryote.

It's one ear in and out the other.
The reason I had to repeat it so much was simply because she kept making the same mistake over and over and over again. I corrected her and not more then 2 posts later there she was... repeating the same nonsense that had just been corrected.


According to Einstein, I must be insane...
Trying the same thing over and over again while expecting different results

I've long since given up on expecting different results though.
No matter how many times she is informed of her strawman... She'll always insist on being wrong, it seems.

Yup. She is not alone, sadly - Leroy is still churning out his nonsense about 30 million mutations and all that. It is like they have such a limited repertoire of prefabricated arguments that they simply cannot abandon them, no matter what.
On another forum, there was a guy that I had sparred with back in 2002 about indels, and he was very upset that all of the nucleotides in an indel are not counted as independent mutations. I explained and provided multiple references to the fact that indels are 1-time events, regardless of their size, and so are 'counted' as a single mutation. He sort of agreed back in 2002. I stopped going to that forum but stopped back in about a year ago just to see who was still there. And wouldn't you know it - the guy from 2002 was STILL HAWKING THE SAME CLAIMS ABOUT INDELS that I had debunked - and he had pretty much accepted - back in 2002! And I was not the only one that had tried to correct him.
It is a psychological phenomenon, to be sure.

 

[Heyo]

I've long since given up on expecting different results though.
No matter how many times she is informed of her strawman... She'll always insist on being wrong, it seems.

 

[Deeje]

Would you be willing to listen?

Are your ears and mind open to the evidence for our Intelligent Designer?
Because his existence does not fit your definition of "scientific", you wave it away without showing us the real evidence.....all you show us is science's interpretation of evidence, couched in language to make people believe it can't be wrong.

I have been reading the explanations for evolution for years, and have not seen to date a single piece of evidence for macro-evolution that did not rely on supposition...peppered with a generous amount of assertion and suggestion. The power of suggestion is grossly underestimated in this case I believe.

I also like to refer to Berkeley for my info on Evolution.... Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
This is because it has to break down the information into understandable increments for students, so they can't dazzle them with jargon...but have to present their information in simple terms.....the reason I like this is because they can't hide the supposition and the suggestions..... its there in plain sight.

Let me give you a small example.....since 'nested hierarchies' have been mentioned in the past as evidence for evolution.....what is the actual evidence?

"The science of evolution :

Nested hierarchies

Common ancestry is conspicuous.
Evolution predicts that living things will be related to one another in what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies — rather like nested boxes. Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record and these relationships can be illustrated as shown below.



In this phylogeny, snakes and lizards share a large number of traits as they are more closely related to one another than to the other animals represented. The same can be said of crocodiles and birds, whales and camels, and humans and chimpanzees. However, at a more inclusive level, snakes, lizards, birds, crocodiles, whales, camels, chimpanzees and humans all share some common traits.

Humans and chimpanzees are united by many shared inherited traits (such as 98.7% of their DNA). But at a more inclusive level of life's hierarchy, we share a smaller set of inherited traits in common with all primates. More inclusive still, we share traits in common with other mammals, other vertebrates, other animals. At the most inclusive level, we sit alongside sponges, petunias, diatoms and bacteria in a very large "box" entitled: living organisms."

Nested hierarchies

Now reading through those statements, anyone who already believes the first premise would see how this supports the theory without question.....but on closer inspection, what do we find?

"Common ancestry is conspicuous." ....one has to ask..."conspicuous to whom?" Only to those who have no reason to question what is presented in those neat little boxes in the diagram.
But what is the diagram based on?

"Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record and these relationships can be illustrated as shown below." (in the diagram)

Do "similar characteristics" or "shared traits" mean anything if you don't already accept evolution as fact? Do "shared suites of similar characteristics" and a "number of shared traits" prove "relatedness" as in a place on the evolutionary tree?
The illustration means nothing if you don't already believe that the diagram is an accurate description of the truth?
Is the diagram based on fact or supposition?

Now, phylogeny is described as "the study of evolution, diversity, and the way different organisms and species are related to each other"......so again we see a foregone conclusion formed from an assumption that evolution is a proven fact....when it isn't. The study of evolution is made by evolutionists so what conclusions are going to be drawn from their evidence? Does the evidence fit the theory or is the theory squeezed into the evidence?

Relatedness is not proven by similarity or shared traits. These things can just as easily be explained by an Intelligent Creator (who is not a magician) taking his time to create living creatures at will. He can take a basic framework and design living things around it. He can take the same basic materials and like a potter, fashion many different pieces. The pieces are related to the Potter, not the clay.

How many vertebrates are there? Who says they must be related, just because their framework is similar? God can create diversity because he has the power to create matter and to fashion it into whatever he pleases. The Bible describes God as "abundant in dynamic energy".....who is science to say that he can't exist, because they do understand the relationship of energy to matter.

What makes people think that the Creator needs to prove himself to mere mortals who are carried away with their own importance.....as if they "know" anything about the earth's past history with any certainty, or about its creatures who lived millions of years before they were even brought into existence? Its guesswork, pure and simple. Call it what it is.

So, when it suggests that "snakes and lizards share a large number of traits as they are more closely related to one another than to the other animals represented. The same can be said of crocodiles and birds, whales and camels, and humans and chimpanzees. However, at a more inclusive level, snakes, lizards, birds, crocodiles, whales, camels, chimpanzees and humans all share some common traits." Again, we are seeing assumptions being portrayed as facts. The suggestion is that all these creatures are related because they share "common traits"....you mean like eating, sleeping and breathing?

The Creator is an artist...have you never seen an artist create different works with the same subject matter?

And here is the 'piece de resistance'...."More inclusive still, we share traits in common with other mammals, other vertebrates, other animals. At the most inclusive level, we sit alongside sponges, petunias, diatoms and bacteria in a very large "box" entitled: living organisms."
So just to make sure we all get the point of our "relatedness", lets suggest that all life fits in one evolutionary box.

The fact that 'people who are blind will never see', can work both ways.....we see you as 'blind' as you see us. Time will tell I guess.

Our only advantage of course, is that we have a hope for the future, that thankfully doesn't depend on science or humans to deliver it.

 

[Deeje]

I love the irony.....

 

[Heyo]

Are your ears and mind open to the evidence for our Intelligent Designer?
Because his existence does not fit your definition of "scientific", you wave it away without showing us the real evidence.....all you show us is science's interpretation of evidence, couched in language to make people believe it can't be wrong.

I have been reading the explanations for evolution for years, and have not seen to date a single piece of evidence for macro-evolution that did not rely on supposition...peppered with a generous amount of assertion and suggestion. The power of suggestion is grossly underestimated in this case I believe.

I also like to refer to Berkeley for my info on Evolution.... Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
This is because it has to break down the information into understandable increments for students, so they can't dazzle them with jargon...but have to present their information in simple terms.....the reason I like this is because they can't hide the supposition and the suggestions..... its there in plain sight.

Let me give you a small example.....since 'nested hierarchies' have been mentioned in the past as evidence for evolution.....what is the actual evidence?

"The science of evolution :

Nested hierarchies

Common ancestry is conspicuous.
Evolution predicts that living things will be related to one another in what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies — rather like nested boxes. Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record and these relationships can be illustrated as shown below.



In this phylogeny, snakes and lizards share a large number of traits as they are more closely related to one another than to the other animals represented. The same can be said of crocodiles and birds, whales and camels, and humans and chimpanzees. However, at a more inclusive level, snakes, lizards, birds, crocodiles, whales, camels, chimpanzees and humans all share some common traits.

Humans and chimpanzees are united by many shared inherited traits (such as 98.7% of their DNA). But at a more inclusive level of life's hierarchy, we share a smaller set of inherited traits in common with all primates. More inclusive still, we share traits in common with other mammals, other vertebrates, other animals. At the most inclusive level, we sit alongside sponges, petunias, diatoms and bacteria in a very large "box" entitled: living organisms."

Nested hierarchies

Now reading through those statements, anyone who already believes the first premise would see how this supports the theory without question.....but on closer inspection, what do we find?

"Common ancestry is conspicuous." ....one has to ask..."conspicuous to whom?" Only to those who have no reason to question what is presented in those neat little boxes in the diagram.
But what is the diagram based on?

"Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record and these relationships can be illustrated as shown below." (in the diagram)

Do "similar characteristics" or "shared traits" mean anything if you don't already accept evolution as fact? Do "shared suites of similar characteristics" and a "number of shared traits" prove "relatedness" as in a place on the evolutionary tree?
The illustration means nothing if you don't already believe that the diagram is an accurate description of the truth?
Is the diagram based on fact or supposition?

Now, phylogeny is described as "the study of evolution, diversity, and the way different organisms and species are related to each other"......so again we see a foregone conclusion formed from an assumption that evolution is a proven fact....when it isn't. The study of evolution is made by evolutionists so what conclusions are going to be drawn from their evidence? Does the evidence fit the theory or is the theory squeezed into the evidence?

Relatedness is not proven by similarity or shared traits. These things can just as easily be explained by an Intelligent Creator (who is not a magician) taking his time to create living creatures at will. He can take a basic framework and design living things around it. He can take the same basic materials and like a potter, fashion many different pieces. The pieces are related to the Potter, not the clay.

How many vertebrates are there? Who says they must be related, just because their framework is similar? God can create diversity because he has the power to create matter and to fashion it into whatever he pleases. The Bible describes God as "abundant in dynamic energy".....who is science to say that he can't exist, because they do understand the relationship of energy to matter.

What makes people think that the Creator needs to prove himself to mere mortals who are carried away with their own importance.....as if they "know" anything about the earth's past history with any certainty, or about its creatures who lived millions of years before they were even brought into existence? Its guesswork, pure and simple. Call it what it is.

So, when it suggests that "snakes and lizards share a large number of traits as they are more closely related to one another than to the other animals represented. The same can be said of crocodiles and birds, whales and camels, and humans and chimpanzees. However, at a more inclusive level, snakes, lizards, birds, crocodiles, whales, camels, chimpanzees and humans all share some common traits." Again, we are seeing assumptions being portrayed as facts. The suggestion is that all these creatures are related because they share "common traits"....you mean like eating, sleeping and breathing?

The Creator is an artist...have you never seen an artist create different works with the same subject matter?

And here is the 'piece de resistance'...."More inclusive still, we share traits in common with other mammals, other vertebrates, other animals. At the most inclusive level, we sit alongside sponges, petunias, diatoms and bacteria in a very large "box" entitled: living organisms."
So just to make sure we all get the point of our "relatedness", lets suggest that all life fits in one evolutionary box.

The fact that 'people who are blind will never see', can work both ways.....we see you as 'blind' as you see us. Time will tell I guess.

Our only advantage of course, is that we have a hope for the future, that thankfully doesn't depend on science or humans to deliver it.

I take that as a "No".

 

[Heyo]

I love the irony.....

What would happen to me if I switched sides?
What would happen to YOU?

 

[Deeje]

What would happen to me if I switched sides?
What would happen to YOU?

Interesting situation to explore methinks.....

 

[Mock Turtle]

Our only advantage of course, is that we have a hope for the future, that thankfully doesn't depend on science or humans to deliver it.

So which God and which religious belief will deliver it - if such is not actually in our hands? Need I guess?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because his existence does not fit your definition of "scientific", you wave it away without showing us the real evidence....

One does not need evidence to "wave away" that which is asserted without evidence.
Because that's really what you mean by "does not fit your definition fo scientific": that your assertion isn't backed up by testable evidence.

.all you show us is science's interpretation of evidence

The difference between science's "interpretation" and yours, is that science's is independently testable and verfiable.

, couched in language to make people believe it can't be wrong.

Again complaining about jargon, ey?

I have been reading the explanations for evolution for years,

And yet, you seem completely oblivious to the basics of the basics and manage to get it wrong every time in every conversation.

I also like to refer to Berkeley for my info on Evolution.... Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
This is because it has to break down the information into understandable increments for students, so they can't dazzle them with jargon...but have to present their information in simple terms.....the reason I like this is because they can't hide the supposition and the suggestions..... its there in plain sight.

Let me give you a small example.....since 'nested hierarchies' have been mentioned in the past as evidence for evolution.....what is the actual evidence?

"The science of evolution :

Nested hierarchies

Common ancestry is conspicuous.
Evolution predicts that living things will be related to one another in what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies — rather like nested boxes. Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record and these relationships can be illustrated as shown below.



In this phylogeny, snakes and lizards share a large number of traits as they are more closely related to one another than to the other animals represented. The same can be said of crocodiles and birds, whales and camels, and humans and chimpanzees. However, at a more inclusive level, snakes, lizards, birds, crocodiles, whales, camels, chimpanzees and humans all share some common traits.

Humans and chimpanzees are united by many shared inherited traits (such as 98.7% of their DNA). But at a more inclusive level of life's hierarchy, we share a smaller set of inherited traits in common with all primates. More inclusive still, we share traits in common with other mammals, other vertebrates, other animals. At the most inclusive level, we sit alongside sponges, petunias, diatoms and bacteria in a very large "box" entitled: living organisms."

Nested hierarchies

Now reading through those statements, anyone who already believes the first premise would see how this supports the theory without question.....but on closer inspection, what do we find?

"Common ancestry is conspicuous." ....one has to ask..."conspicuous to whom?" Only to those who have no reason to question what is presented in those neat little boxes in the diagram.
But what is the diagram based on?

"Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record and these relationships can be illustrated as shown below." (in the diagram)

Do "similar characteristics" or "shared traits" mean anything if you don't already accept evolution as fact? Do "shared suites of similar characteristics" and a "number of shared traits" prove "relatedness" as in a place on the evolutionary tree?
The illustration means nothing if you don't already believe that the diagram is an accurate description of the truth?
Is the diagram based on fact or supposition?

Now, phylogeny is described as "the study of evolution, diversity, and the way different organisms and species are related to each other"......so again we see a foregone conclusion formed from an assumption that evolution is a proven fact....when it isn't. The study of evolution is made by evolutionists so what conclusions are going to be drawn from their evidence? Does the evidence fit the theory or is the theory squeezed into the evidence?

Relatedness is not proven by similarity or shared traits. These things can just as easily be explained by an Intelligent Creator (who is not a magician) taking his time to create living creatures at will. He can take a basic framework and design living things around it. He can take the same basic materials and like a potter, fashion many different pieces. The pieces are related to the Potter, not the clay.

How many vertebrates are there? Who says they must be related, just because their framework is similar? God can create diversity because he has the power to create matter and to fashion it into whatever he pleases. The Bible describes God as "abundant in dynamic energy".....who is science to say that he can't exist, because they do understand the relationship of energy to matter.

What makes people think that the Creator needs to prove himself to mere mortals who are carried away with their own importance.....as if they "know" anything about the earth's past history with any certainty, or about its creatures who lived millions of years before they were even brought into existence? Its guesswork, pure and simple. Call it what it is.

So, when it suggests that "snakes and lizards share a large number of traits as they are more closely related to one another than to the other animals represented. The same can be said of crocodiles and birds, whales and camels, and humans and chimpanzees. However, at a more inclusive level, snakes, lizards, birds, crocodiles, whales, camels, chimpanzees and humans all share some common traits." Again, we are seeing assumptions being portrayed as facts. The suggestion is that all these creatures are related because they share "common traits"....you mean like eating, sleeping and breathing?

The Creator is an artist...have you never seen an artist create different works with the same subject matter?

And here is the 'piece de resistance'...."More inclusive still, we share traits in common with other mammals, other vertebrates, other animals. At the most inclusive level, we sit alongside sponges, petunias, diatoms and bacteria in a very large "box" entitled: living organisms."
So just to make sure we all get the point of our "relatedness", lets suggest that all life fits in one evolutionary box.

The fact that 'people who are blind will never see', can work both ways.....we see you as 'blind' as you see us. Time will tell I guess.

Our only advantage of course, is that we have a hope for the future, that thankfully doesn't depend on science or humans to deliver it.

Here's what interesting about this post...

You opened up by asking if one is ready to listen for the evidence in support of your designer.

And then you go on a rant where you do nothing but complain about evolution and sciences you evidently don't understand.

Not a single word on actual evidence FOR your claim. Instead, only false and dishonest complaints about the scientific theory that threatens your beliefs.

Very very telling.

If you have evidence in support of your designer, then just share that evidence and explain how it is evidence.

"evolution" or any other theory (wheter it contradicts your designer or not) should not even be mentioned when the point is that you are going to present the evidence FOR you designer.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I love the irony.....

If you think that's irony, it's yet another piece of evidence that you have no clue at how science works.

See, a scientist's pay check does NOT depend on upholding the status quo in any scientific field.

In fact, it's quite the opposite.....
Nobel prizes (you know: a million bucks), and all the grants and fame and glory that come with that, are handed out not to people who merely confirm previously held ideas. Nope... Those are reserved for those people who turn fields upside down and show all their collegues to be wrong.

So you have it exactly backwards.

In science, you're a nobody if you don't do original research, discover new things or overturn the consensus.

 

[Heyo]

Interesting situation to explore methinks.....

Yep. Without risking to step on anyone's toes I've tried to abstract the topic in this OP. I'd like to see your opinion on that.

 

[Deeje]

So which God and which religious belief will deliver it - if such is not actually in our hands? Need I guess?

You can guess if you want to, but guessing is what gets science into trouble....

Since there is only one God....I’ll pick him.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You can guess if you want to, but guessing is what gets science into trouble....

Since there is only one God....I’ll pick him.

Oh yeah, guessing has provided no answers for science.

 

[Deeje]

Oh yeah, guessing has provided no answers for science.

I think there is a marked difference between guessing with fudged or biastly interpreted evidence, and predicting an outcome backed up with with experimentation, which results in reaching provable conclusions....what about you?

Nothing wrong with hypotheticals and suggestions in any field of study, as long as they are not presented as proven facts.
What's wrong with the truth? Science apparently 'can't handle the truth'....

How dare we expose their unprovable musings as ideas that simply have no real support....except in the lengthy protestation about why their unprovable musings must be true....or is that "might be" or "could be"?

 

[Deeje]

See, a scientist's pay check does NOT depend on upholding the status quo in any scientific field.

So you've never seen a scientist lose their job over daring to suggest that there is a connection between a paycheck and ones "belief" in science? The status quo will not be questioned.....it would mean that science could be w-r-o-n-g.

We only have to see what happens in the medical field when someone wants to upset their apple cart with a new discovery that proves that their former treatment options were actually harmful.....its often career suicide....a tough wall to tear down. (The treatment of stomach ulcers was an example. Helicobacter was suggested as the culprit in many cases, and a short course of anti-biotics could cure it. He was almost laughed out of medicine....until it was proven to work.) Its hard to change scientific minds once something is entrenched. (Or dare I say indoctrinated?)

In fact, it's quite the opposite.....
Nobel prizes (you know: a million bucks), and all the grants and fame and glory that come with that, are handed out not to people who merely confirm previously held ideas. Nope... Those are reserved for those people who turn fields upside down and show all their collegues to be wrong.

I think you are speaking about that obvious 'one-up-manship', where competing scientists might have grant money or Nobel Prizes in mind, along with accolades from the scientific community if they can do something that no one else has done....or discover things that no one else has discovered....so, what do you think they are going to do?
The hallowed halls of science are littered with egos, eager to compete, but they would never venture outside the evolutionary boxing ring into which most branches of science must do their sparring. All their competition is inside that ring and based on that first premise.

You can believe in science if you wish.....it is after all, the study of creation. I'll allow the Creator to tell me what he did....in the order that he did it. I believe he is way more believable than the story science is spinning.

So you have it exactly backwards.

LOL...I think you are rather naive about that.

In science, you're a nobody if you don't do original research, discover new things or overturn the consensus.

Oh yes....let's not forget 'who wants to be a 'nobody''. There you have it.

Original research and new discoveries that can stick it to other competing scientists is nothing more than an ego trip. You don't seem to understand that none of their research or discoveries will ever challenge the very foundations of evolutionary science. That remains as solid as it ever did, despite the fact that there is no concrete supporting it.....its made of matchsticks IMO.