Human Evolution Theories

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SubtleEnergies

And a univeristy qualification doesn't necessarily means one knows what they are talking about...I am at uni....biggest joke ever lol..

---

very true!

but that coupled with years of experience in the field (let alone working in a discipline that only exists because it is based on the facts of evolution)

i deal with verifiable evolution every single day.. its what my whole career is based on..

its like an astronomer studying the "heavens" and then someone comes along with no real solid argument, but nonetheless comes along and says... "u know there is no such thing as stars right". its all bullsh*t

lol.. thats what ur doing... in a situation as such, (when a field is established and efficacious).. the burden of proof is on you! evolution has all the facts and evidence on its side and is well established.. any who claim otherwise have the burden of prooving their claim.. otherwise stop wasting everyone's time

NO, that's what you are doing.

Large parts of "science" is filled with gaping holes and evolution is one.

I wouldl ike to discuss this open mindedly with you, but you are avoiding the questions I am asking.

Would you be so kind as to solve them, as these are my doubts on evolution.

Im kinda w. SubtleEnergies cuz the same questions he proposed is what I usually do. Like they have this perfect systematic model of how a monkey became man (which I cannot believe I came from a monkey) but you never ever see anything like for example...what were the stages a rabbit went to before it was fully a rabbit. Or what was the monkey before it was a monkey? and the hope from an ape to man is a pretty large jump.

Even a cell developing flagella...thats a crazy mutation. I never heard of a human jes sprouting some form of a tail. But I dont have ne kind of ph.d, just observation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kennings

Im kinda w. SubtleEnergies cuz the same questions he proposed is what I usually do. Like they have this perfect systematic model of how a monkey became man (which I cannot believe I came from a monkey) but you never ever see anything like for example...what were the stages a rabbit went to before it was fully a rabbit. Or what was the monkey before it was a monkey? and the hope from an ape to man is a pretty large jump.

Even a cell developing flagella...thats a crazy mutation. I never heard of a human jes sprouting some form of a tail. But I dont have ne kind of ph.d, just observation

---

this is where formal study comes into play.. the evolutionary stages for horses, rabbits and almost every creatuyre u can name are indeed known..

its just that ppl dont talk about them because its not as controversial as monkey to man.

and btw most ppl dont c themselves as related to a monkey because of personal reasons.. not because of the evidence.. the evidence is there.. the fossil evidence is there and more importantly the MOLECULAR and GENETIC evidence is there!!! thats most important and cant be refuted ! so even if one wants to cling to a weak claim of a lack of fossils u still have to xplain the genetic and molecular evidence in favor of evolution!

the transition of eartly tetrapods to quadripedal mammals to what lead to the rabbit is well known and understood (RABBITS AND HARES ARE AN EARLY OFFSHOOT FROM THE "RODENTIA" CLASS).. its just that most of this stuff is only deeply discussed and learned in formal graduate level courses!

about cells and flagella.. the mutation isnt crazy at all if one understands the nature of biochemistry and what makes the flagella! one must undertsand that fully b4 understanding fow a flagella or even cilia come to be!

in modern science, all of these questions have already been put to rest

http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/2...mattack0xk.png

You still have totally avoided what I said.

I asked for examples of transitional forms, and you go on to say "yes, transition of these animals is well known." Now, you are meant to have a PHD so stop playin dumb.

HORSES
Until recently, an imaginary sequences supposedly showing the evolution of horse was advanced as the principal theory of evolution. Today however, many evolutionists themselves frankly admit that the scenario of horse evolution is bullshit.

Evolutionist Boyce Rensberger delivere an address to 150 evolutionists saying horse evolution has no grounds in the fossil record and that there is no evolutionary process observed that would account for the gradual evolution of horses:

[b] The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creature living nearly 50 million years ago to todays much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.

The famous paleontologist Colin Patterson, a director of the Natural History Museum of England where the "evolution of the horse" schemes were on display, said the following about this exhibition which was still being shown to the public on the ground floor of the museum:

There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit down stairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particulalry when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of that stuff.


The horse evolution scenario was formulated by means of the deceitful charts that were devised by the sequential arrangement of fossils of distinct species that lived at VASTLY DIFFERENT PERIODS in India, South Africa, North America and Europe. There are more than 20 charts of horse evolution (Yo, Yeldell, that don't sound too well "known" nor scientific to me!). Evolutionists have reached no common agreement on the issue of these family trees, which are totally different from each other by the way. The only common point of these arrangements is the belief that a dog-sized creature called "Eohippus" that lived in the Eocene Period 55 million years ago was the ancestor of the horse. But, the supposed evolutionary lines from Eohippus to the modern horse are totally inconsistent.

Evolutionary scientist writer Gordon R Taylor in his book (Sold a few more copies than Yeldell's :)) :
But perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure of paleontogists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences of organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change....The horse is often cited as the only fully worked-out example. but the fact is that the line from Eohippus to Equus (horse) is very eratic. It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that some variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. Specimens from different sources can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time.




FUCK YOUR HORSE THEORY!
And as for that monkey shit, although you seem to be a transitional form I can list off 100 times as many reasons this theory isn't possible. Which I shall do later.
:)

Kennings....I will show you later how we did NOT come from any moneky....

And what they once said were our "Ancestors" are now admitted to be our cousins. Some even similar to modern races.

(No shit! Darwin was racist as all fuck)

evolution exists, at 4 weeks a fetus has a reptilian like tale. a link to the past

dna changes, humans have adapted and evolved since their conception

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

evolution exists, at 4 weeks a fetus has a reptilian like tale. a link to the past

dna changes, humans have adapted and evolved since their conception

---

yea, too bad we invented religion.... we would've been a lot further if it wasn't for this shit

peace

maybe, i personally feel religiuon is usually the scapegoat cus its inanimate but i in no way see it as important, to me at least

religion

like entertainment

is a trick to the eyes
and pretty much all the other senses

is there a difference between religion and hollywood?
cheering for your favorite team on autumn sundays like it matters?

ouch

Ronin you fuckin idiot. Don't ruin this thread with unfounded bullshit. After my last past your justification for evolution is a TAIL -LIKE appearance in a fetus.

A link to our reptillian past? LMAO

Just for all the idiots...the tail like look is actually the spine in the fetus...LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SubtleEnergies

Just for all the idiots...the tail like look is actually the spine in the fetus...LOL.

---

LOL - AND WHAT IS THE TAIL ON A REPTILE ?

A SWALLOWED SNAKE ?

My point was that just because the spine develops faster does not make it a FUCKING TAIL! DOES IT?!

The difference between a reptile is that its spine develops to eventually include a tail. OUR DOESN'T! NEVER HAS!

We can find fossils from before human times. If humans with tails existed the fossils would be numerous.

Please Sunny, don't you go ignorant on me too :|