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 39 of 52 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 517

Thread: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

  1. #381
    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?

    continued

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari
    Infinity is good for boundary conditions, and functional infinity can have a place as well. It's not measurable, but it is well defined.
    It is as emotional as it is vague. I state: Infinity is neither good nor bad. It exists in both mathematical and physical realms. It is partially defined as immeasurable and including all measurements.

    Is my statement true or false?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari
    They're of the same thing, these are theories and quantum of science. These things have measurement behind them.
    Concrete proof is proof built from measurement, not of abstract thought and desires of magic.
    The obvious fact is that not any proof built from measurement automatically renders to be valid or scientific even if it meets your vague anti-scientific criteria to be concrete. Alchemists built their theories from measurement, as well as Sagan built his drifters and floaters ‘’The other aerial residents of Jupiter were known as floaters, which Sagan would later describe as being “kilometers across, enormously larger than the greatest whale that ever was, beings the size of cities.” Floaters were seen as drifting across the vast alien sky in great herds, looking like a collection of immense balloons, which in essence there were, using the lighter elements of Jupiter’s atmosphere to stay aloft.’ as well as his calculations of a small-scale nuclear winter in the first Iraq war and all his other scientific blunders from measurement.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari
    There were good indications the sun was spinning around the Earth till the telescope was invented. More data came in and proved otherwise.
    What is your criteria of good and bad? Do you have a slightest understanding of criteria science is operating under?

    [quote=Ikari] And what was the cause of the sun moving… It was gods which did it[/QUOTE=Ikari]
    And how it is ever different from your methodology? They looked at the measurable sun and they saw it was moving. They knew if it was moving there should be something which was moving it. It couldn’t be wind because wind blows in all different directions, it couldn’t be water, but it had to be something not visible directly as atoms are not visible, so it had to be some occurrences which where not ‘’observed directly’’, and they called them gods. And if somebody said “I have to see the occurrences’’ they were saying the same as you say, - Do you have a better explanation? And they were treating the one who was asking to see gods and not having a “better explanation” with the same zealously as you treat those who have doubts in evolution here. There is absolutely no difference between your methodology of proving evolution and the methodology of the ancients proving gods moving the sun. The only difference could be is that ancients most likely did not take it seriously, but rather for entertaining purposes, because it was clear that gods wouldn’t spent their time for such a sweaty endeavor, while you believe your fantasies with all your heart.


    ‘’The next question was — what makes planets go around the sun? At the time of Kepler some people answered this problem by saying that there were angels behind them beating their wings and pushing the planets around an orbit. As you will see, the answer is not very far from the truth.’’ – Richard Feynman. The Character of Physical Laws (1964)


    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari
    before we measured it and found it to be natural force.

    Says who? Found - who? According to the text of Newton’s theory God did it, - like everything else measurable.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari
    Gods were always ascribed as the answer when humans didn't know, and time and time again it was found that gods had nothing to do with it.
    Who and when did ascribe and who and when did prove God had nothing to do?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari
    So is true with evolution, evolution is your new geocentric universe.

    If geocentric universe was wrong (it neither was wrong nor is wrong from the scientific POV), then I am wrong? and if Heliocentrism is correct evolution is correct? Oh, man, do you have a slightest understanding of criteria science is operating under? Do you have a slightest idea about logic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari
    Heliocentrism was denied for quite some time by the religious fanatics, even in the face of data.
    Answer – what data, what is data? Is it Data from the starship on TV? Prove it was denied 1. by religious fanatics, 2. In the face of data.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari
    Eventually the data became so overwhelming that it had to be accepted. But you fight evolution with the zeal of the geocentrists. Despite there being evidence to the contrary, you rally against science to preserve your ideals of your god.
    What data? What is data? Oh, my dear man, is it so bad in universities today? What is data? New occurrences were observed and experiments were made, the propositions (equations) inferred from these occurrences were made. The results of the equations were at last found to be CONFIRMING and/or be more accurate then the results of equations of the geocentric universe model, such as - the calculations were predicting planets and eclipses and star’s positions at least as accurate as in the geocentric universe model.
    The geocentric universe model is not ever hinted or described in the Bible, but it was described by Ptolemy, who in your system of beliefs is said to think that gods were moving the Sun. [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy]Ptolemy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] Seriously, this is what you are saying – 1. that he lived in ancient Rome and 2. he thought that gods were moving the Sun.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari
    Gods were proven wrong in the past, they'll be proven wrong in the future; and the zealots will change or die out. That's measured reality.
    .

    Yeah, gods are wrong, you are right. Oh, man. What are your criteria of wrong and right?

    Einstein goes to heaven and asks for an audience with God.
    - OK, - says God, - what do you want?
    - I want to know how you made the universe.
    God goes to a chalk board and fills it with long formulas.
    Einstein finishes moving his head following the chalk and says, - you have a mistake in the end of the 5th equation.
    - I know, - says God humbly.

    Oh man, neither you understand simple sentences, statements or questions, nor you understand what you are saying.

  2. #382
    The Image b4 Transition
    Lightdemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    beneath the surface
    Last Seen
    05-31-12 @ 02:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,829

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Because our ancestors were just dumb monkeys and weren't capable of the complex reasoning you're presuming they did, and because the process took thousands of years, they didn't know the grass was greener in the other valley.
    You're not making any sense. Can you restate?
    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    Let the public school provide the basics, you as the parent can do the fine tuning.

  3. #383
    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
    I think I should give GarzaUK a day or so before I conclude that he, again cannot answer a simple question, but rather has “taken on 2 weeks vacation” in order then to pop out on another thread with pure defamation and insults under the umbrella provided to such actions of fanatical evolutionists and liberals by moderators.
    Oh, I'm not done with you justone, not by a long shot. Funny how you didnt rebutt my final big post. I've been busy these days and you would have seen when my last log in time was around the time you asked the question., thats why I gave up the mod position at this site. But I will answer your question tonight.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone
    before I conclude that he, again cannot answer a simple question,
    Yet you cannot or will not answer a simple question for me, I have asked it 4 or 5 times, still you have ignored it and it is fundamental to your whole argument.

    Why would the whole scientific community (atheist and religious) lie about evolution to the whole world??

    It is the simplest of questions. Or are you afraid to answer it incase you seem like a whacko?

    Also you have yet to rebutt my last big post. Or do you agree with me that a new species has come into existence in nature?
    "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. #384
    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
    Oh right, here we go "But GarzaUK its not turnng into a different kind of plant, like a rose". For all your bravada and knowledge it has come to the old creationist agrument of "kinds". Like I said evolution is a long process. Simply Macroevolution = Microevolution + Time.
    This has been disproved mathematically.
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...post1058010837

    Evolution has been disproved. All what is left is to point that evolutionists cheat and lie.
    .

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    The quote says that York Radiate cannot mate with its parent species (

    "Other studies have shown that S. eboracensis is reproductively isolated from its parents due to a 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."

    Top of page 376 states "A third fertile hybrid derivative was first recorded near York railway station (OS105 594 516) by R. J. Abbott and D. F. Marshall in 1979.
    All of these mechanisms have been shown to drastically reduce intertaxon crossing at sympatric sites and in common garden experiments (Lowe 1996, Lowe and Abbott, inreview)."
    So here we have a fertile new species, that cannot exchange genetic material with its parents in nature
    Pinch. No it does not say that. The result is a new species called S. eboracensis, which cannot mate with any other plant than itself.
    As for crossbreeding …it can (albiet weaker offspring), when forced, in lab conditions, but you should know justone if you have researched such matters that this does not define a new speices. It is whether it can breed with others or not in nature without human interference.
    Have you read it, they did that and they produced (barely fertile) offspring UNDER LAB CONDITIONS WHEN FORCED. However in nature (where it counts), they cannot
    You know my answer to this, look above. They reproduce in a lab yes. NOT IN NATURE!! Basic Biology 101 here!
    Let us notice. GarzaUK has problems with answering the simple question again. I just looked up [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senecio_eboracensis]Senecio eboracensis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] ‘’A newcomer to the plant world, York groundsel has been used as an example to support Darwin-like evolution[7] and also as evidence of the opposing theory of creationism[8] among groups who argue these theories. The refusal of S. eboracensis to breed back to its parents is the main point of contention between the rival parties.’’ I did not find contention, yet, but I think I will add this qoute as another example of shameless cheating of evolutionists, the propaganda which fails as usual when it is facing simplest questions.


    I cannot wait until GarzaUK looks for the proof of parents. I will do it for him. I bolded it..

    Did anybody notice that GarzaUK did not address my reply bolded ‘’Other studies (????)”? Four questions, - no reaction.

    I pointed that the GarzaUK’s article did not meet the requirement of observations. There was no report of observations, experiments, but a few references to “Other studies”. I pointed and Garza’s excepted that the Yorker mated with parents in the article, but Garza says it does mean what it means. OK.


    R. J. Abbott and D. F. Marshall (Lowe 1996, Lowe and Abbott,


    Here we go - the mysterious other source, - R. J. Abbott, Lowe and Abbott: Routes of origin of two recently evolved hybrid taxa: Senecio vulgaris var. hibernicus and York radiate groundsel (Asteraceae) -- Lowe and Abbott 87 (8): 1159 -- American Journal of Botany

    It is called self reference. But let us read and see what did the experiments really show.
    Last edited by justone; 05-07-09 at 02:22 PM.

  5. #385
    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?

    What did the experiments really show?

    They show that they took A2 and A3 and A4 … An and experimented on them to see IF they possibly can be parents of A0. They were not aware of biology 101 as Garza states and they “produced (barely fertile) offspring UNDER LAB CONDITIONS WHEN FORCED” thinking, – the stupid, - that it could prove things plants do in nature.

    They were so stupid that they did not use the term ‘’barely’’, but 71%, 86%, so that I wouldn’t have to guess – is it fertile or not fertile.

    ‘’The other F2 plant was derived from the cross in which var. vulgaris was the maternal parent (F2a) and was partially fertile (pollen fertility 71%; open seed set 54.9%), and produced radiate capitula (mean ray floret length 10.0 = mm). Though no chromosome count was made of this plant, it was highly interfertile with S. vulgaris (backcross success = 86%) and was presumed to be near tetraploid’’

    The experiment does NOT produce positive results. When then they write another article they are cheating making statements.

    ‘’Seed collection and plant propagation
    Seeds of S. squalidus, S. vulgaris var. vulgaris, and York radiate groundsel were collected from natural populations in York, UK, between 1989 and 1993, while seeds of S. vulgaris var. vulgaris and hibernicus were collected from populations in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1991. All seeds from field populations or generated by experimental crosses were sown on damp filter paper.
    Crosses were made between individuals of S. vulgaris var. vulgaris and artificially synthesized tetraploid S. squalidus

    A total of 158 plants were raised … under conditions of cultivation described ‘’



    I don’t know if I should comment again, how evolutionists do not understand what is an experiment. 158 plants out 158 million, different years and location, different mating period, no conclusive result observed, …..and the bogus conclusion is positively made.

    Still the “Other studies” confirm everything I said – A1, A2, A3, were mating quite joyfully. And the stupid ones never thought that ‘’(barely fertile) offspring A01 UNDER LAB CONDITIONS WHEN FORCED’’ was not the proof that A2 and A3 could be parents of A0 in nature as they were hoping to find. They did not find what they were hoping for, but they now come up with the bogus conclusion that it is the proof that A0 is a different specie.
    It is also clear that when A1, A2, A3….An joyfully mate with each other and produce sterile or fertile hybrids there is no need to call them all different species. The total amount of information in A NEVER increases, but rather is observed to be decreased ONLY. There should be some mathematical objective criteria, shouldn’t? It is clear that S. squalidus, S. vulgaris var. vulgaris, and York radiate groundsel are different forms, strains of the same specie S. and hybrids of the different forms remain hybrids, as they were known to our ancestors. Evolutionists rather bring in confusion when they define species so frivolously just to fit their beliefs.


    The reported observations have established that I am correct and the Yorker CAN mate with other Senecios and his parents. The objection is made here that according to Garza who is a biologist I do not know biology 101, and that according to the biologist Garza I was supposed to read out in the article what was not written in it. It is clear the ‘’other studies’’ totally ignore Garza’s biology 101, too.

    Frankly this is an eye opening case. I did not think that evolutionists now have no barrier which would stop them from cheating. Evolution should be stopped immediately.

    In the conclusion the ‘’other studies’’ say that they couldn’t establish that A2 and A3 were parents of A0. The stupid ones did not know biology 101 and forgot to look at genomes.

    ‘’Unfortunately, it was not possible to continue the analysis over future generations to the point where it could be said with confidence that stabilized introgressants had been produced that were identical in form to either var. hibernicus or York radiate groundsel’’

    ’What is clear from the present analysis is that stabilized introgressants of Senecio can be produced in several different ways, which raises the question as to which of these pathways is (or are) most likely to have led to the formation of var. hibernicus and York radiate groundsel in the wild.’’

    ‘’Finally, the fact that interspecific hybridization occurs regularly, though infrequently, in natural populations and the finding that stabilized hybrid products of later generation are likely to be produced with some ease, would indicate that multiple origins of S. vulgaris var. hibernicus and York radiate groundsel may be common in the British Isles.’’


    Anyone who can read can see that the real observation suggests and suggests only but does not prove that A2 and A3 are NOT the sole parents of A0. It does NOT make ANY positive conclusion that A2 and A3 are parents of A0, the Yorker.

    The ‘’other sources’’ meet requirements of a scientific publication in spite of the use of the word evolution in the meaning totally different from the meaning we have been using it here. It provides a full report for peers to object, agree, repeat, use the results.

    The fact is that that the real experiment was designed to estimate what Senecios could be parents of their hybrid Yorker.
    The fact is that the answer was not given with any certainty but rather points to multiple origins of the Yorker.
    The fact is that - contrarily to evolution 101 - hybridization occurs regularly in natural populations (according to the authors).
    The fact is that there is no indication here that it is the first observation in history of natural and artificial hybridization that it somehow is not a dead end (sterile) or does not lead to mating with the same species.
    The fact is that there is no possibility of an intellectually honest answer from an evolutionist. If you are not a biologist, an evolutionist will try to pull all kinds of ‘’biology 101’’ on you, which has nothing to do with biology but rather with evolution 101 aka known as deception.

    The bottom line:
    1. S. vulgaris and S. S. squalidus are NOT found to be the parents of the Yorker. Evolutionists cheat.
    2. Even if they were, the Yorker still mates with them. Evolutionists cheat.
    3. Even if did not mate, there is no indication that this is the first hybrid not to be a dead end. Evolutionists cheat.
    4. Even if there was such indication, there is no observation that animals and plants are related. Even if evolutionists exhibit plant-like thinking, they still remain apes. Botanic and Biology are 2 different disciplines. Evolutionists cheat.
    5. Bubbling that they are scientists because they use measurable they runaway from any attempt to apply any measurements, any mathematics they scream that this is heresy of devil, I mean creationists. Simple measurements like an amount of information in specie puts them into religious stupor. They know mathematics is from devil.
    6. In spite of the fact that evolution has been mathematically disproved and they cannot rise any objections they will ignore reason and common sense and will keep on going with their immeasurable fantasies.
    7. In spite of the fact that Tucker proved that humans and chimps have 70% in common DNA and we have no idea what does it mean, they will keep on spreading lies that it is 96% and it means that we have a common ancestor with apes, - look they still are making fantasies how apes turned into humans. Tucker can scream, type, prove, they will ignore him, when he dies nobody will remember his discoveries, but one justone with grey hair and a cane will come to his grave to put a glass of vodka covered with a slice of bread on it.

    I think I have had enough of it. Neither evolutionists can be reasoned nor they get exhausted in their attacks on human reason in their twists, spins and lies. I just picked up a few from GarzaUK’s posts, but they are full of.

    If somebody besides the fanatics has a question or argument of any kind, please don’t think it is stupid, the stupid thing would be not to ask. If I have time I will answer.
    Last edited by justone; 05-07-09 at 02:29 PM.

  6. #386
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightdemon View Post
    You're not making any sense. Can you restate?
    No. I made perfect sense. Climate change is typically a slow process, as is evolution.
    Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 05-07-09 at 02:31 PM.

  7. #387
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,301

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    I thought I already splained evilution.
    Attached Images Attached Images Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?-evolution-and-id-jpg 
    "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.

  8. #388
    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?

    Actually just took me half an hour to find the data.

    Morphically speaking it is obvious the SENECIO EBORACENSIS is a new hybrid species caused by Senecio vulgaris and Senecio squalidis crossing with each other in a chance event. But I got something more.

    http://www.ria.ie/cgi-bin/ria/papers/100501.pdf

    The latter is most likely the product of fusion between an unreduced gamete of S. squalidus and a normal reduced gamete of S. vulgaris . Lowe and Abbott (2000) proposed that S. eboracensis originated in a few generations by segregation from either the triploid or tetraploid hybrid, or following backcrossing of either hybrid to S. vulgaris . The hybrid status of S. eboracensis is evident from its intermediate morphology and its possession of an additive isozyme profile (Irwin and Abbott 1992).
    Now the DNA.

    A preliminary survey of RAPD and inter simple sequence repeat (ISSR) variation has shown that a high proportion of markers that distinguish the two parent species are present in S. eboracensis , indicating that this new hybrid species contains a significant portion of the genomes of
    each parent (Abbott et al. 2003).
    All the genetics tests are in the paper below.
    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pic...1&blobtype=pdf (abbot et al, 2003)



    RAPD used in standard parental DNA identification cases such as paternal identification for a child or the identification of a murderer or rapist. Basically it is used in the court of law and is pretty damn accurate as many dead beat dads and murderers will attest to.

    RAPD - rDNA: Random Amplification of Polymorphic DNA (RAPD)

    ISSR is used in hybrid work

    ISSR - ISSR Resource Website

    Oh another paper just for fun, explaining why due to the sexual isolation of the Senecio Eboracensis it should be classified as a new species.

    Heredity - Reproductive isolation of a new hybrid species, Senecio eboracensis Abbott & Lowe (Asteraceae)

    Thats four papers already and you only asked for one 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

  9. #389
    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
    This has been disproved mathematically.
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...post1058010837

    Evolution has been disproved. All what is left is to point that evolutionists cheat and lie.
    Mathematics has nothing to say on evolution, in fact nothing to say on biology at all. Biology is not black and white like Mathematics is or even Physics. Life can mutate and degrade, succumb to random events, make choices to what mate to reproduce with. Life is not rarely bound by rules or laws. You ever wonder why biology has rarely any laws when physics has plenty of them?

    You cannot compare the uncertainity of life with the set in stone predictability of mathematics. Doing so, shows a poor understanding of evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Let us notice. GarzaUK has problems with answering the simple question again. I just looked up Senecio eboracensis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ‘’A newcomer to the plant world, York groundsel has been used as an example to support Darwin-like evolution[7] and also as evidence of the opposing theory of creationism[8] among groups who argue these theories. The refusal of S. eboracensis to breed back to its parents is the main point of contention between the rival parties.’’ I did not find contention, yet, but I think I will add this qoute as another example of shameless cheating of evolutionists, the propaganda which fails as usual when it is facing simplest questions.
    The fact you always use wikipedia in your arguments says ALOT about you justone. How is it a shameless cheat justone, BACK UP YOUR ARGUMENTS WITH EVIDENCE, rather than just aimlessly slander people.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    I cannot wait until GarzaUK looks for the proof of parents. I will do it for him. I bolded it..
    I did it.
    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Did anybody notice that GarzaUK did not address my reply bolded ‘’Other studies (????)”? Four questions, - no reaction.
    Studies, you mean those books? Anyone opinated wacko can write a book. Shall I take all those alien abduction books as fact too?
    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    I pointed that the GarzaUK’s article did not meet the requirement of observations. There was no report of observations, experiments, but a few references to “Other studies”. I pointed and Garza’s excepted that the Yorker mated with parents in the article, but Garza says it does mean what it means. OK.
    Yeah you pointed it out, yet your points are worthless WITHOUT EVIDENCE justone. Just because you say so doesn't make it true.
    "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

  10. #390
    Guru
    ADK_Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    05-07-11 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,706

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    I thought I already splained evilution.
    That's funny! But, you lost me where Intelligent Design leads to... dubya.
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

Page 39 of 52 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... 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
  •