rofl
fucking bible bashers
Printable View
rofl
fucking bible bashers
sorry ive been away for a couple of days and couldnt respond.. i have a lot to say .. stay tuned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SubtleEnergies
YOU NEVER HEARD OF OR SEEN PICTURES OF BABIES BORN WITH TAILS ?
hmm i actually haveQuote:
Originally Posted by SUNNY WINTERS
human babies have indeed been born with "tails" or an extended coccyx.
This is indeed evidence of evolution simply from a genetic/molecular perspective.
See this is the thing.. ppl can use old out dated arguments on transitional follsils and what not , but u cant refute the genetic and molecular evidence!
human beings should not have the genetic "instructions" to produce an anomalous "tail" if we werent the descendants of prior ancestors who had tails! there is no way possible to possess the amino acid sequences needed to develop a tail if it wasnt in our evolutionary history!
but one with knowledge of evolution and phylogeny would expect this! we would expect vestiges of our evolutionary past to manifest themself as biological anomalies every now and then simply because we still possess the genetic sequences to produce these structres!
similarly whales possess the genes needed to produce hind legs and as u would expect. every once in a while there are whales born with functional vestiges of hind limbs! why would whales produce hind limbs if it wasnt in their evolutionary history that they are related to tetrapod land animals that once walked on land!
the fossil evidence is once thing but the genetic and molecular evidence puts it all to rest.
i will address the other posts n a few
An extended coccyx is like any other birth defect and doesn't prove shit. I have seen babies born with two heads, that doesn't mean we have the DNA for it ...nor that we evolved from some bi-cranial species.
As for the molecular level, evolution is more disproved here. I will write on this when I have some reliable references at hand.
And Yeldell, I will tell you once. Stop speaking down. "One with knowledge of blah blah...." I am perfectly capable of understanding what you are saying. So stop acting like you the only one on here with a fuckin degree!
I am in no way speaking down to anyone.. im just stating the obvious.. one with knowledge of genetics and evolution (and all of its subdivisions) wouldn’t be making ridiculous claims that have been put to rest well over 50 years ago.. one in these circles stays up to date with whats goin on in the scientific and evolutionary community and understands the weaknesses of the alleged arguments against it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SubtleEnergies
An extended coccyx is in no way merely a simple little birth defect……. see this is what im talking about…. “one with knowledge of genetics and evolution” would understand the true nature of a what exactly a birth defect is and how vestiges can manifest themselves.
The extended coccyx isnt merely an elongated bone by defection.. im talking about a continued appendage with the necessary morphology of a tail! (the S1, S2, S3 and sometimes S4 vertebrae!)
If it was a mere extended bone, it would not have the necessary vertebral subparts that all primate tails exactly have!
Imigine this….. I have a pet goldfish… my pet goldfish has babies one day.. in the babies I notice that there is a “birth defect” that creates a nipple on its belly….. THIS WOULD BE NONSENSICAL… u know why?.. because fish evolved before the evolution of mammals.. and thus it would be impossible for fish dna to spontaneously produce by defect a nipple!
On the other hand, it is totally possible for humans
and any other primate to spontaneously from time to time produce any anatomical feature from our evolutionary past in some way shape or form because its already in or DNA ! one little mistake during zygote formation in our mother’s womb and oops.. nature creatues a human baby with a developed tail appendage following the genetic instructions ingrained in our dna from 1 million years ago.
LOL that's exactly what you are doing. Claiming you can trace the evolution of animals when I talk about transitional forms, yet when I post exposing the bullshit in your theories you THEN , and only then, decide to call it outdated. Why didn't you state that originally instead of trying to use outdated info to support your view? Coz you are full of it!
You are the one lacking knowledge here. Stop changing topics every time you get stuck (although that's what evolutionists do best right?).
This whole thread you have no constructively put your point accross in anyway. If oyu have something of use to say say it. When I ask you something ADDRESS IT! and maybe when can build here.
^ this whole post was an attempt to avoid the matter. i know what im talking about.
hey man explain the two heads and siamese twins thing. are saying that conjoined twins are mere birth defects but an elongated coccyx is not?Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
im not claiming to know anything about this cuz i dont im just and observer asking some questions.
--- let me clarify what exactly i mean... first and foremost.. of course an elongated coccyx is indeed a birth defect.. i was stressing the point that u cant merely label an elongated coccyx as a "mere" birth defect without thinking anything of it.. they are all birth defects (ie, mistakes made during zygote formation), but alas.. this is where the distinsction begins and attention to the details is critical!
there are many types of "birth defects", some involve fertilization issues (such as the case with a sperm fertilizing an egg that begins to divide and halfway thru it encounters an error and thus we end up with a baby with 2 heads).. thats one kind of birth defect!
and then you have the more important type.. the type that we are talking about in this discussion.. birth defects that occur because a sperm fertilizes an egg and the egg divides normally and undergoes development into a homo sapien, but along the way, instead of following the genetic instructions needed to make a fully functional homo sapien, it mistakenly "reverts" back to old genetic data imprinted in our dna and REACTIVATES certain proteins that code for the production of an extinct appendage such as a TAIL.
they are 2 totally different types of birth defects, but sadly.. ppl seem to lump them together without understanding and thinking of the facts and details.
so in closing.. u can either have a birth defect resulting from a physical/mechanical problem during zygote formation..... such is teh case with a 2 headed or conjoined person!.... or u can have a birth defect that results from a genetic anomaly.. such as the case as a human being born with a tail... the genetic anomaly in this case can only occur simply because our genes already have the codes bult into them how exactly to create a tail...
why would our dna have this data inside it if we are not related to creatures that once had tails!.. its very simple.
and btw.. this doesnt just occur in ppl.. it occurs in every other animal on the planet
its the reason modern pythons sometimes have leg appendages.. its the reasons birds and other ovivaptorour creatures sometimes start to develop teeth while in the egg (modern birds dont have teeth, but the extinct reptilian ones did indeed have teeth, so mother nature every once in a while makes a mistake and creates a modern bird with teeth utilizing the still present dna and genetic instructions all brirds possess to be able to have teeth!
so what do these tails on these human babies look like exactly? is it like a stub just above their ass? as they grow older what does it look like? has their been a documanted case where a human had a full blown tail?
damn, i created a ruckus in here... I am a firm believer in evolution, and I'm glad I got My First Timbs arguing pro-evolution, considering he has a phd in it.
No timbs you DICKHEAD. Maybe you need to go back to college and work on your English, coz you missing the point!
You haven't addressed one point I have brought up! And I will not move on to new points you have brought up until you do so, so we can have some structure to the discussion!
Now, the fossil record argument is outdated? As far as I know you never gave us an EXPLANATION for it. Or is that what you evolutionists do :
"This one's taking too long, let's outdate it!"
It is still just as fucking relevant. Unless you meant that you don't believe evolution happens above the molecular level? But I highly doubt that.
NOW for your next post let me tell you what I am asking for (make it easy for you) :
1. Your explanation of the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record ("It's outdated" not being one).
2. I want a documented cases with references and sources I can view showing animals with the past DNA of their ancestors with things such as tails in humans or whatever. Coz I am believing this about as much as the horse fossil record.
i'd really like to get an answer to these questions from timbs or anyone else who has knowledge on this subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by wadeDyNaMiTe