Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?

Some of the evolutionary changes in the human and ape skulls in the past 3 million years: (controversial, but good)




Last Edited by MarPep on 05/10/2017 06:15 PM

Would you believe me if I told you there's no fossil of any transitional human, all have been proven fake or extreme imagery to the point of luinacy to make it fit, even the covent Lucy has been proven fake?

You don't have to take my word for it just google it. The best one was from the mid west, farmer found a tooth, Darwin people said it was proof of Neanderthal man in the midwest for that time period, putting them still there later than thought. There was big news coverage and even a traveling exhibit. When finally DNA tested it was found to be from a extinct feral pig, yes a fucking pig. Do you now see how far the Darwin church will go to make their religion true?

Pig tooth = pre human? Maybe they ment Neanderthal ate him, right? And theh just misspoke.

And before you start do some reading and don't just regurgitate the lies you've been told, really research and think how can anything be one thing and then another thing without any fossil record or how there's things still here that are in fossil records for millions of years alive and kicking, the main just to Darwinism is that all thing's change due to mutation, when in actuality a mutation, one big enough to change a species into something else had been proven be sterile because just a little deviation usually causes this.

This is the whole thing, micro evolution can happen over time yes we all see that, selective breeding proves it. Macro evolution, one species becoming a different one is impossible and there's no proof anywhere

Last Edited by Daggo on 05/10/2017 06:09 PM

So do ice sickles and snow flakes.

Some of the evolutionary changes in the human and ape skulls in the past 3 million years: (controversial, but good)



[/quote
Nice fossils, so what's the reason to believe any of these turned into another one?

The kangaroo also suddenly appeared but not in the bible. Seems the authors only knew about shit within walking distance.

Nice fossils, so what's the reason to believe any of these turned into another one?DGN
_______________________________________

The absence of modern man skulls in those times, and the progressive brain enlargement and upright posture, and facial formation. Plus the genetic kinship with the great apes in our DNA.

That second video explains it in an entertaining manner.

How would he know about anything else?

The Genus Homo has probably been around for 2 million years. Currently, our known written history just goes back five thousand years. The first prehistoric human skulls have only been recognized in the past 125 years. Readily available genetic testing has only been available in the past 20 years. We are just beginning the quest, and without a time-machine, it will be difficult to find evidence of anything in a world that has gone through several Ice Ages and innumerable volcanoes and earthquakes and the ravages of time, wind, and water on that evidence.

Please show me how to construct a single living cell out of mud.

Please show me how to construct a single living cell out of mud.DGN
_____________________________
Sure. Piece of cake.
It got the same beginning that any/every creator-god got.

You wouldn't expect a down syndrome kid to build the Golden Gate Bridge or expect anyone to be capable of making him understand it. Go and build your own gay-ass bridge, you flaming retard shill, don't expect other people to want to walk on it.

So just start with step one so I can learn.

Wrong way of man period nothing to do with evolution, you can blame a lot of things today on medical science and their messing people up. I knew older people way up in years and they did not have these problems. If you could get out of you box, a look around you would understand more.

Try walking like and ape for a while then come back and talk.

[link to www.sciencedaily.com (secure)]

[link to www.sciencedaily.com (secure)]

[link to www.sciencedaily.com (secure)]



Don't let that be the end of the learning but just the beginning. Seek and ye shall find.
And stay off youtube.

So that proves turning mud into living cells requires deliberate scientific knowledge and intelligent design, or disproves it?

Because Youtube videos destroys the Sci-Fy Cult of evolution?

Why would I believe your lies?



This anecdote does not prove your ASSertion.

'Darwin people'? LOL



You mean creatard propaganda and liars-for-Jeebus?

Why is it that the vast majority of people who deny reality are those that suffer from an ideology that conflicts with the facts.
Face the music: if your ideology conflicts with demonstrable facts it is not reality that has issues.


So what magic keeps 'macro-evolution' from happening?


That's like a flaterist claiming that all space images are CGI.

Wholly unconvincing and utterly lacking in evidence.

Scienctists have already created a living cell and with no help from "God".

"What Venter's company achieved was a technical feat that does not live up to its headlines. The team of scientists used machines to synthesize DNA from scratch. However, the particular DNA sequence they manufactured was an exact copy of pre-existing DNA from a living strain of bacteria.

The study authors stated, "This project was critically dependent on the accuracy of these [original bacterial] sequences." This is because even a slight error could ruin the resulting cell. They discovered this firsthand, when their "success was thwarted for many weeks by a single base pair deletion in the essential gene dnaA."2 Some portions, however, tolerated errors with no observed effects.

Once they accurately copied the exact required sequence of 582,970 DNA base pairs and then precisely synthesized the DNA itself--in shorter segments that were then added together--the synthesized genome was transferred to a type of yeast that is commonly used in laboratories. These yeast cells can accurately copy long sequences of DNA. So far, no human machine can do this. Yeast also has enzymes that maintain DNA integrity.

Finally, the researchers transferred the laboratory-synthesized, yeast-cloned DNA into a living bacterium that had its own DNA removed. The resulting cell grew and multiplied successfully in the lab."

Scienctists have already created a living cell and with no help from "God".

"What Venter's company achieved was a technical feat that does not live up to its headlines. The team of scientists used machines to synthesize DNA from scratch. However, the particular DNA sequence they manufactured was an exact copy of pre-existing DNA from a living strain of bacteria.

The study authors stated, "This project was critically dependent on the accuracy of these [original bacterial] sequences." This is because even a slight error could ruin the resulting cell. They discovered this firsthand, when their "success was thwarted for many weeks by a single base pair deletion in the essential gene dnaA."2 Some portions, however, tolerated errors with no observed effects.

Once they accurately copied the exact required sequence of 582,970 DNA base pairs and then precisely synthesized the DNA itself--in shorter segments that were then added together--the synthesized genome was transferred to a type of yeast that is commonly used in laboratories. These yeast cells can accurately copy long sequences of DNA. So far, no human machine can do this. Yeast also has enzymes that maintain DNA integrity.

Finally, the researchers transferred the laboratory-synthesized, yeast-cloned DNA into a living bacterium that had its own DNA removed. The resulting cell grew and multiplied successfully in the lab."
_______________________________________
To be fair--
What Venter did was really rearrange some DNA and put it back into a pre-existing cell, which then reproduced itself. He did not create the cell itself, although this "new" bacteria is sometimes referred to as a "creation"

Last Edited by MarPep on 05/11/2017 03:42 PM

All of which demonstrates even faking non intelligent design requires an intelligent deceiver.

This missing link between man and ------- seems scientific proof of evolution enough for me. Seeing is believing and those photos can't be denied.


Last Edited by DGN on 05/11/2017 04:08 PM

you have a mental problem.

Just exactly WHAT are you trying to prove with all your allegations to a dead man?

He already knows if there is or is not a GOD.

Really?
"For as respects whoever is joined to all the living there exists confidence, because a live dog is better off than a dead lion. 5 For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten. 6 Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun.' Ecc9:4

My threads are for helping the living, the dead will be resurrected.
" That is also why we, from the day we heard [of it], have not ceased praying for YOU and asking that YOU may be filled with the accurate knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual comprehension, 10 in order to walk worthily of Jehovah to the end of fully pleasing [him] as YOU go on bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the accurate knowledge of God, 11 being made powerful with all power to the extent of his glorious might so as to endure fully and be long-suffering with joy, 12 thanking the Father who rendered YOU suitable for YOUR participation in the inheritance of the holy ones in the light." Col1:9

"why would they not be fully functional? is your brain a peanut?"
Do you think mud accidentally turned into peanuts?

The second law of thermodynamics owns you

From the first link:

"If there exists that kind of mini-catalyst, a 'sister' to the one we describe, the world of the replicators would also jump a long step closer and we could really feel we were closing in on the first things on Earth that could undergo Darwinian evolution," Yarus said.

"In other words, we may have taken a substantial step toward the very origin of Earthly life," he said. "However, keep well in mind that the tiny replicator has not been found, and that its existence will be decided by experiments not yet done, perhaps not yet imagined."

From the second link:

The crucibles that bore out building blocks of life may have been, in many cases, not fiery cataclysms, but modest puddles. Researchers working with that hypothesis have achieved a significant advancement toward understanding the evolutionary mystery of how components of RNA and DNA formed from chemicals present on early Earth before life existed. In surprisingly simple reactions they have produced good candidates for their precursors that even spontaneously joined up to look like RNA.

From the third link:

"We now have more information about how amino acids eventually evolved into complex molecules necessary to create life as we know it," Carter said. "But perhaps more importantly, we've been able to provide a new set of tools that will enable others to approach questions about the origin of life in ways that are scientifically sound and productive."

And there are still questions about how all this happened.

"This doesn't yet solve the central chicken and the egg problem," Carter said. "Even the designed protozyme requires a ribosome to synthesize it and lead to protein creation. But what we've shown is that blueprints for life actually contained more information than anyone had realized because both strands of the ancestral gene were responsible for encoding the two classes of synthetases needed for the creation of proteins."


So, nothing but speculation as usual...

You are very very correct.

By "fully functional", you mean that it has not achieved the characteristics that allow it to compete very successfully within its niche.

A creature that is not "fully functional" will have a low population, because it can't survive as well as the dominant forms around it. Therefore, they leave very few fossils of their type.

IF the creature changes to become more competitive than its competition, suddenly it can thrive, and have a huge population. -Therefore leaving many more fossils.

It's kind of like a fire that smolders for a long time, then suddenly bursts into flame under the right conditions.

Fossil hunters have found a very small percentage of existing fossils. They are millions of times more likely to come across fossils of a dominant species than a species that's barely getting by.