View Poll Results: Did we evolve from Apes?

Voters
133. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, we evolved from Apes.

    71 53.38%
  • No, we have not evolved in any shape or form, we are the same biological beings we have always been.

    26 19.55%
  • Yes, we did evolve, but i do not think we evolved from Apes.

    36 27.07%
Page 36 of 52 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 517

Thread: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

  1. #351
    That European Guy
    GarzaUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Belfast, Northern Ireland
    Last Seen
    11-30-15 @ 02:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Somebody, Ticker, please explain the simplest question to the evolutionist?

    It is the tread where I asked you for one, just one link for a peer reviewed publication claiming an observation of speciation. Where I had to spend post after post trying to explain to such a simple question, and still you produced all kind of totally irrelevant things but not even one justone I was asking for.

    There has been no evolutionist in my practice who would be able to understand the simplest question:

    provide one justone link to a peer reviewed publication claiming an observation of speciation.

    I am asking for one, justone article a peer reviewed scientific publication, so I can read and review it. Can you understand?
    I love how you are a patronising ass. Sigh, sure ok why not chuckles.
    Lowe and Abbot (2003) A new British species, Senecio eboracensis (Asteraceae), another hybrid derivative of S. vulgaris L. and S. squalidus L Watsonia 24: 375–388

    http://www.watsonia.org.uk/Vol24p375.pdf

    A new species of Senecio from York, England, is described and named as Senecio eboracensis. Evidence is reviewed that this fully fertile, tetraploid species (2n = 40), which was first discovered in 1979, is a hybrid
    product of S. vulgaris (2n = 40) and S. squalidus (2n = 20), and is distinct from another tetraploid hybrid product, the stabilized introgressant, S. vulgaris var. hibernicus, and also from the hexaploid hybrid product, S. cambrensis. Other studies have shown that S. eboracensis is reproductively isolated from its parents due toa high level of selfing, phenological separation, sterility of products of back crosses to S. squalidus and
    reduced fertility of products of back-crosses to S. vulgaris. The morphological similarity of S. eboracensis to partially fertile, intermediate hybrid plants collected from other locations in the British Isles is discussed, and would indicate that it could arise polytopically following hybridisation between the two parent species. However, other such intermediate hybrid products do not appear to have persisted at their site of origin.
    Oh deary deary deary me Justone, looks like speciation has been observed after all. Just like I said. There you have it, a brand NEW species (since it can't mate with its parent species) from two other species.

    No, but let me guess. Your going to cry about how this isn't observed speciation and how wrong this article is. Even if scientists brought homo erectus out of the jungles of Indonesia, creationists still would deny evolution. They are stubborn, they are the geocentrics of the 21st century.


    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Do you agree with the fact that they lie stating that speciation has been observed?
    Until the fact is established unarguably there is no sense in explaining it.
    So you answer my question with another question? I'll ask again.

    WHY IS THE WHOLE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITIY (ATHEISTIC AND RELIGIOUS) LYING TO THE WORLD??

    I noticed you are obsessed with speciation, is that in recognition that the evidende of the rest of evolution is solid.
    "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." ~ Isaac Asimov

  2. #352
    Sage
    Infinite Chaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    11-19-17 @ 06:45 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,858

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    -- Which is a proof that evolution is not science.

    That’s why science used to be such an excited game when it followed rules which not allow zealously of personal beliefs to prevail over reason and facts. It is the matter of survival of human reason and morality – to hunt evolutionists wherever they are found, to petition to ban evolution in science classes, to return science its beauty and excitement. Whatever are the motivations of evolutionists they act as cancer on the beautiful body of science and all people should deal with them like with cancer. Because science is very important for all people, all they have around them – starting from a bicycle and finishing with a space craft wouldn’t be possible without science. It does not provide us with any truth or direction in life, but it certainly makes life very interesting.
    I am no scientist however I have read your posts in this debate at first with exasperation and then with growing understanding. I found your exchanges with Tucker very illuminating and informative.

    Took me a while to get through the whole thread but worth the read.

  3. #353
    That European Guy
    GarzaUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Belfast, Northern Ireland
    Last Seen
    11-30-15 @ 02:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos View Post
    I am no scientist however I have read your posts in this debate at first with exasperation and then with growing understanding. I found your exchanges with Tucker very illuminating and informative.

    Took me a while to get through the whole thread but worth the read.
    I cannot tell you how to think. However I would trust people qualified and have expertise in their field in the field of evolution and also trust its in critics failed attempts to disprove in evolution for 150 years than to a guy/girl that has conflicting interests in evolution because of his faith.
    A guy/girl that with one hand criticises the apparent lack of evidence for speciation in the effort to debunk and in other hand promotes a creator/intelligent design that has no evidence whatsoever. But of course there is no problem for the lack of evidence in HIS/HER views. Hypocrisy thy name is justone.
    "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." ~ Isaac Asimov

  4. #354
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    I cannot tell you how to think. However I would trust people qualified and have expertise in their field in the field of evolution and also trust its in critics failed attempts to disprove in evolution for 150 years than to a guy/girl that has conflicting interests in evolution because of his faith.
    A guy/girl that with one hand criticises the apparent lack of evidence for speciation in the effort to debunk and in other hand promotes a creator/intelligent design that has no evidence whatsoever. But of course there is no problem for the lack of evidence in HIS/HER views. Hypocrisy thy name is justone.
    You fail immediately.

    First you insult intelligence of a poster, saying – don’t think, just trust evolutionists because…. they do evolutionism. It is a typical sign of a non-scientist. A physicist wouldn’t mind to explain theory of relativity to a freshman student and answer questions not doubting the intelligence of the audience, but rather his own ability to make things clear.

    My expertise is not in a claim but it is all in my posts. Tucker’s expert thinking is as self-evident as his ability to question 96% of DNA evolutionists are trying to pull on audience everywhere all the time.

    It is the #1 argument of evolutionists, ‘’because of his faith’’, they don’t how not to go personal. Infinite Chaos exactly sees because of what. He does not have to be a scientist to see that. Every decent being does not have to be a scientist to see that Tucker’s faith is quite opposite to mine. Every decent being sees that you demonstrate again how evolutionists are blinded by their fanatical faith.

    Fail.

  5. #355
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos View Post
    I am no scientist however I have read your posts in this debate at first with exasperation and then with growing understanding. I found your exchanges with Tucker very illuminating and informative.

    Took me a while to get through the whole thread but worth the read.
    It takes a good mind to overcome exasperation and look for reason and information. But what is a more important it takes a good character and a good man to step up and say.

    I told Tucker that his attitude towards himself was undeserved.

    You may be assured that I am grateful to both of you.

  6. #356
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    new species of Senecio from York, England, is described and named as Senecio eboracensis. Evidence is reviewed that this fully fertile, tetraploid species (2n = 40), which was first discovered in 1979, is a hybrid
    product of
    S.[enecio] vulgaris (2n = 40) and S.[enecio] squalidus (2n = 20), and is distinct from another tetraploid hybrid product, the stabilized introgressant, S. vulgaris var. hibernicus, and also from the hexaploid hybrid product, S. cambrensis. Other studies [??????]have shown that S.[enecio] eboracensis is reproductively isolated from its parents due toa high level of selfing, phenological separation, sterility of products of back crosses to S. squalidus and
    reduced fertility of products of back-crosses to S. vulgaris. The morphological similarity of S. eboracensis to partially fertile, intermediate hybrid plants collected from other locations in the British Isles is discussed, and would indicate that it could arise polytopically following hybridisation between the two parent species. However, other such intermediate hybrid products do not appear to have persisted at their site of origin.
    Thank you for useful post, GarzaUK! I have to admit that I made wrong statements and I must make two major corrections in my statements induced by the facts of your post.

    First of all I was wrong when I said ‘Would it be possible for a fanatical evolutionist to publish such an article, theoretically yes, there are less than a few which call the observation evolution, while it is clear that there is no evolution, I found them in evolution only devoted publications. They are absolutely exclusion.”

    I must say now: Would it be possible for a fanatical evolutionist to publish such an article, yes, of course, there are quite a few which call an observation evolution, while it is clear that there is no evolution, I found them in evolution only devoted publications. But they are quite an exclusion.”

    I will get to the second correction…


    ‘’taking the overall we consider York radiate groundsel should be described as a new specie’’…. and give it name ‘’Senecio eboracensis’’ instead of York radiate groundsel

    OK. The article is devoted only to the defense of the opinion of the authors to call York radiate groundsel ‘’Senecio eboracensis’’ and a new spicie. Nobody has thought about that before, science need evolutionists to make an article.

    Let’s take a look at what is going on:


    ‘’hybernicus and ‘York radiate groundsel’’ generate highly sterile progeny with S.squalidus.’’ [its parent]

    Let me understand, - it does generate progeny or it does not. Do I understand English correctly - A genetic descendant or offspring [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progeny]Progeny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] ?. Somebody has to explain it to me. It is sterile or it is highly sterile?


    ‘’The second generation offspring of crosses between York radiate groundsel and Senecio vulgarus exhibit a significant reduction in seed set. ''

    You just said that York radiate groundsel does not cross with S. vulgarus. Now you say it does. Somebody pinch me – it does or it does not?. Somebody has to explain it to me



    York radiate groundsel is a hybrid, the parents are hybrids and their names are S.squalidus and S. vulgaris. And the article talks about the second generation offspring of crosses between York radiate groundsel and S. vulgarus, and says they do not produce offspring on the same page.

    Even if to take that I don’t understand English, the article proves that evolutionists don’t understand what is an experiment and observation in science. Taking a limited sample from the wild and putting it under the condition that wouldn’t allow it to breed, rather than under all possible conditions, and claim that it does not breed is not how experiments are conducted. Besides of that physiology of plants is very different from physiology of life. I don’t have a pdf converter to quote easy but differences in phenology mentioned are like a woman has certain periods when it cannot get pregnant from a man and limiting experiment to this period and claiming that women do not get pregnant from men is not quite scientific.
    It would be a must for a real researcher to attempt to cross the Yorker with other Senecios and show that the offspring do not occur and do not cross with his parents, that things do not come on their circle. From the descriptions in the article it is clear that it is not a case, but the opposite is true. Thus, even if the article was not totally bogus claiming totally opposite things on the same page, we see that Senecios are divided into different species by authors totally frivolously, that in all of we have one and only one specie Senecio with different strains and the Yorker quite easily and joyfully mates with other Senecios. Anyone with common sense would see that Senecios are remaining to be Senecios, all of them.

    This is a good example how evolutionists often try to manipulate with the uncertain definition of species to fit it to their beliefs. It is not the first and it is not the last example it is very common. But as E.coli bacteria remain e.coli bacteria in all experiments in the same way Senecio remain Senecio in this bogus paper. And BTW the article says that the “’new specie” reproduces with its parents and cousins and brothers. Let me quote from the article:
    ‘’hybernicus and ‘York radiate groundsel’’[new spicie] generate … progeny with S.squalidus.’’[parent]
    ‘’The second generation offspring of crosses between York radiate groundsel [new spicie] and Senecio vulgarus [parent] exhibit’’You don’t believe me? Click on the link and read the article. I couldn’t believe my eyes, too.

    The difficulties of coping pasting from pdf. make me stop at this there is more to quote but the above is sufficient.

    Hybrids are known as a dead way, but not a way of evolution. Also it is known that the conclusion that hybrids cannot mate with their parents may be quite premature like the widely spread belief caused by limited representation in experiments:

    ‘’Several female mules have produced offspring when mated with a purebred horse or donkey.[7] Since 1527 there have been more than 60 documented cases of foals born to female mules around the world.
    There are reports that a mule in China produced a foal in 1984.[8][9]
    In Morocco, in early 2002, a mare mule produced a rare foal.[7]
    In 2007 a mule named Kate gave birth to a mule son in Colorado.[10][11] Blood and hair samples were tested verifying that the mother was a mule and the colt was indeed her offspring.’’


    I am sorry, scientists, you've really made me cry, but I am afraid to call this particular hybrid which is a product of other hybrids a new specie and evidence for evolution would be somewhat premature if not totally bogus.


    The second correction is that I completely forgot about hybrids, and this article has reminded me how such a gap of memory can lead to major misrepresentation of theory of evolution in some of my statements.

    This article tries to prove the major positions of evolution outlined in The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication where Darwin polishes and expands his Origins and, – contrary to what I said wrongly, - puts evolution in practical use. This fundumantal 2 volume work of Darwin is the root from which the article takes its origins.

    If to imagine that the plant has evolved into a new specie in the wild, by itslef, with no human intevention, no specially made enviroment within such a short period of time of a few decades due to hybridisation, then it is unarguably clear that the new hybridised specie will produce another new spicie hybrid under the human design and intelligently induced conditions within a few years. Thus evolutionists are the only scientists who can make the weed turn into a plant bringing nice jucy berries for free along the roads we walk, which is no different from statements of Obama’s compaign. This is the practical use of science of evolution I missed when I was stating that evolution had no practical use. The article proves that all evolutionists need is their own Obama from evolution or to sell these berries to Obama. This practical use of the article and the theory of evolution explained in The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication has proven to be working:

    Michurin was a Russian scientist who worked during the late-1800s to improve and create new varieties of plants and introduce them to areas of severe climate in Russia (Bakharev 6). His principle that “we cannot wait for favours from Nature” and that instead, “we must wrest them from her,” was based on his interpretation that Marxist dialectical materialism taught “how to actively influence Nature and how to change it” (Bakharev 6-8). The revival of his theories in the mid-1900s was tied to the fate of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko.

    Lysenko claimed that plants could be 'educated' so that the changed germination time became heritable after several generations of vernalization…

    Lysenko promised …that new strains of wheat and other crops with desirable traits could be produced within 3 years…

    Lysenko was put in charge of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the Soviet Union and made responsible for ending the propagation of "harmful" ideas among Soviet scientists. Lysenko served this purpose by causing the expulsion, imprisonment, and death of hundreds of scientists and eliminating all study and research involving Mendelian genetics throughout the Soviet Union.
    [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Undergrowth-Science-Delusion-Self-Deception-Frailty/dp/0198507070]Amazon.com: The Undergrowth of Science: Delusion, Self-Deception and Human Frailty: Walter Gratzer: Books[/ame]
    [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Lysenko-Effect-Politics-Science/dp/1591022622]Amazon.com: The Lysenko Effect: The Politics Of Science: Nils Roll-Hansen: Books[/ame]

    I remember I have 2 posts unanswered, I will, but first I had to make sure that it is clear to everyone that evolutionists are lying in their propaganda that speciation has been observed, as well as why do they have to do so.
    Last edited by justone; 05-04-09 at 11:44 AM.

  7. #357
    Sage
    Infinite Chaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    11-19-17 @ 06:45 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,858

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    I cannot tell you how to think. However I would trust people qualified and have expertise in their field in the field of evolution and also trust its in critics failed attempts to disprove in evolution for 150 years than to a guy/girl that has conflicting interests in evolution because of his faith.
    A guy/girl that with one hand criticises the apparent lack of evidence for speciation in the effort to debunk and in other hand promotes a creator/intelligent design that has no evidence whatsoever. But of course there is no problem for the lack of evidence in HIS/HER views. Hypocrisy thy name is justone.
    My personal inclination is toward atheism, that evolution has happened however justone raised some pretty good questions in my mind - not towards a faith based view of the world but towards seeing that evolutionists are becoming what they despise in theists.

    Tucker Case pointed out a few (or more) pages back that justone had put a pretty good argument forward about how we view evolution / evolutionists and how it could (If I recall correctly) be shifted toward a philosophy and that started me off thinking. I need to read people like justone, simply because his/her views help me to understand my position better and he/she elaborates the questions I should be prepared to ask.

    Certainly, I feel he is correct in that speciation has not been directly observed - there are other things I disagree with that were asked. One thing I try to remember when people make claims about science is that it is carried out by imperfect humans who sometimes make mistakes. One thing I try to remember when people make claims about science is that it is carried out by imperfect humans who sometimes make mistakes. As I understand it, making scientific claims does ask that you can repeat certain events - the peer review element Justone asks for proof of. As I stated in my first post, I'm no scientist but the dialogue between justone and tucker case helped me and made me think.

    That's why I thanked them.

  8. #358
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,277

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Why do we argue over whether it's evolution or God? Will it change the path of either camp? Likely not.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  9. #359
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Why do we argue over whether it's evolution or God? Will it change the path of either camp? Likely not.
    The fact is that the majority of Christians believe in evolution. For instance the Pope ordered Catholics to believe in evolution. The fact is that you and evolutionists keep on trying to re-use this old pretence that this is about God vs. evolution and this is as revolting to watch like you would be re-using the same condom over and over again.

    This is Science vs. Evolution. Science has its way to take upper hand however long it make take.

  10. #360
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    No one was really looking for it until the theory of evolution. Why would they?

    It is so untrue that I don’t know how one can make such a statement. Humans were looking at species and experimenting with them since day one. According to evolutionists they even domesticated wild animals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    "How long" would depend entirely on circumstance, but on earth it took about 2.5 billion years. The oldest forms of "life" (which were much simpler than anything we normally consider "life" today) appeared about 3.5 billion years ago, and sex first evolved about 1 billion years ago.
    Approximately 3.35 billion years. The first life appeared in the oceans about 3.5 billion years ago. Archaeopteryx evolved about 150 million years ago.
    Show me what makes you think that it takes only 2.5 B years for an oldest form to evolve into sex.

    We have been observing during all existence of humanity that asexual forms do not evolve into sexual forms even under the most harsh and unusual circumstances induced artificially. Moreover the law induced by the observation says that even one asexual form does not evolve into another asexual form even under the most harsh and unusual circumstances induced artificially. What does make you think that it takes only 2.5B years to break the observed law of nature and why it is possible to break it? What makes you abolish the rules of science?
    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Because A) It isn't zero, it could be some fraction less than one; and B) just because it hasn't been observed in the 150 years since humans have been looking for it doesn't mean that it's never happened in the existence of humanity. Even humans themselves have evolved into different species. Homo habilis looked very different than homo sapiens.

    Keep in mind that there is no ironclad rule that it takes X number of years for Trait Y to evolve. It depends entirely on the environment and circumstance.
    It's frequently been said that if you could hit the "Reset" button on the earth to return it to its primordial state, it is a virtual certainty that nothing even remotely resembling humans would evolve again. There are just too many random occurrences that affect the planet's environment.

    Mathematics of what? I'm not sure what you're asking for.

    There are countless examples. I'll just give you one of my favorites:
    Up until the 1700s, there were lots of pepper moths in England. Most of them were white, but there were a few black ones as well. They were the same species, but a few minor genes affected the color of them. The moths often lived around white birch trees. Unsurprisingly, the white moths camouflaged better than the black moths, and were less likely to be eaten. This explains why they outnumbered the black moths.

    When the Industrial Revolution began, England's new factories began producing large quantities of black soot, which stuck to the birch trees. Within just a few generations, the black moths suddenly outnumbered the white moths.



    In the 1970s, England (like most developed countries) began implementing stricter pollution controls...and now white moths are making a comeback once again.

    Evolution in action.
    There were been black and white moth and in spite of changes in the environment and numbers there are black and white moth. Where do you see any occurrence of speciation?
    You are not sure what I am asking but you are answering?

    ‘’A) It isn't zero, it could be some fraction less than one;’’ – is mathematics I am asking for. We don’t have to wait for a millennium to confirm the result and stages of radioactive decay even if it depends on environment and circumstances. We don’t have to see electrons “’directly’’ or wait for a millennium until decays is finished, we don’t even have apply all environment and circumstances which affect the decay ( but as we need if we need we can). From a well observed and described fraction we can estimate the mass and other parameters of an isotope a millennium ago. Changing environment we can calculate the change in outcome. We don’t observe neutrino directly and as matter of fact we know that we cannot describe it as it does not have any geometrical form or can be compared with anything we observe directly, it is rather a mathematical concept, but we cause and observe a chain nuclear reaction at will. ‘’The fractions’’ of genetic changes are quite well observed and mathematically described. For instance changes in the moth can be mathematically calculated using this tool Punnett Square Calculator or this tool https://finetti.meb.uni-bonn.de
    None of the tools of course has a curve of speciation. Even if blacks exterminated all whites they wouldn’t turn into different species, they would preserve the same amount of genetically information and wouldn’t loose their ability to interbreed with whites. This is a fundamental law of nature which has come from observations and has a well defined and confirmed mathematical apparatus, - which tells us that evolution does not happen.

    But even if to ignore the laws of nature and take your statements as true there are other ways to make at least some estimate. Any sane mind would see clearly that the 2 few billion years period is a ridiculously short time for any possibility of speciation or evolution. I did an estimate on DP once – it shows that roughly you would have to observe 3 new species every day only on the line from a single cell organism to T.Rex, which totally contradicts observations of “fractions” and any sanity.

    And here please try to pay attention. This is the mathematical disproval of evolution. If used, please refer to authorship of justone.

    Evolutionists starting from Darwin say that it takes “millennia” for speciation to happen, that’s why we don’t observe it ''directly' but only ‘’fractions’’ of it. (Please, I am trying to go slow. The next sentence constitutes the mathematical disproof of evolution). This can be true if and only if all species start and finish each proposed speciation at the same time.

    That’s all. Understand? One simple sentence. The rest are just additional explanations, appendix as would call it Einstein.

    This can be true if and only if all species start their slow gradual or other changes under a command “Go!”, then a “millennia” pasts and then under a command “Pop!” they pop into new species and then Go for another millennium of fractions simultaneously until the next command “Pop!” sounds for all of them. And we are somewhere in the middle of a ‘’millennium’’ so we can observe only fractions of the changes leading to speciation.

    That’s all. Understand?

    Such an evolution is a total delirium as it should be clear to everyone. This simple proof, a look at underlying mathematics makes Darwin’s delirium to be delirium and ‘’no go’’ from the start.

    If the otherwise is proposed, that species – thousands (they say millions) of them did not follow such an absurd order, then we would see a new specie which started changes millennium ago popping out today, and tomorrow we would see a new specie which started changes a millennium and one day (or year) ago to pop, and on the day after tomorrow we would see a new specie which started changes a millennium and 2 days (or years) ago. In total, however long it takes for a new specie to pop out and however the time long or different may be for each new specie to pop we would observe them popping out at least on a yearly if not daily basis, - in the same way as we see all other laws and occurrence of Nature happening on the regular bases.

    Now you can relax your attention a little bit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Again, I'm not sure what you're implying? Are you suggesting that the scientists may have gotten the skeleton wrong, and what they think is the creature's skull is actually its ass

    In case of humanoid fossils it is obviously so. But I am saying that you will see fossils of different species in the Museum, exactly like you see different species today. The “transitional’’ species are represented only as drawings inferred by the imagination of evolutionists.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    If you want to debate God, there is a religion/philosophy board on this forum.
    If you want to debate evolution there is a religion/philosophy board on this forum, - why are you here?
    Last edited by justone; 05-04-09 at 06:32 PM.

Page 36 of 52 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •