Want to see the result of viruses causing cell mutation, as in Ebola, Sci-fy Cult of evolution? | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 72531636 United States 03/04/2018 08:46 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: DGN They do not have the intelligence, knowledge, or will to write cell assembly codes, they don't even know they exist or care to Your thinking of it too much like a computer. The information in D.N.A exists, but it doesn't have to be created by an outside source like a computer code does. The "code" in D.N.A and R.N.A is more of chemical reactions be caused by certain parts of the D.N.A. This dancing around the words isn't helping lol. The dancing is self contradicting claiming the codes in RNA are NON-intelligently, mystically invented in DNA but unwittingly admits RNA came first. What a pitiful defense of the dumbest hoax since Catholicism. There are Viruses with R.N.A but not D.n.a. You don't need D.N.A to have R.N.A... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76110400 United States 03/05/2018 03:15 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So we’ve never seen new organisms arise inferno of us? I think scientists disagree..here are some science papers on evolution that we observed. [link to bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com (secure)] ^ Plasmid becoming a virus. [link to www.pnas.org] ^ Sea slugs obtaining photosynthetic capabilities. [link to www.sciencedirect.com (secure)] ^ An amoeba becoming a new group, currently on the process of developing a photosynthetic organelle. |
DGN (OP) User ID: 76193900 United States 03/05/2018 03:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So we’ve never seen new organisms arise inferno of us? I think scientists disagree..here are some science papers on evolution that we observed. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76110400 [link to bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com (secure)] ^ Plasmid becoming a virus. [link to www.pnas.org] ^ Sea slugs obtaining photosynthetic capabilities. [link to www.sciencedirect.com (secure)] ^ An amoeba becoming a new group, currently on the process of developing a photosynthetic organelle. I see you've done much research most interesting. A bit off topic but do you believe human ancestry traces back things like these? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76110400 United States 03/05/2018 04:09 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So we’ve never seen new organisms arise inferno of us? I think scientists disagree..here are some science papers on evolution that we observed. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76110400 [link to bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com (secure)] ^ Plasmid becoming a virus. [link to www.pnas.org] ^ Sea slugs obtaining photosynthetic capabilities. [link to www.sciencedirect.com (secure)] ^ An amoeba becoming a new group, currently on the process of developing a photosynthetic organelle. I see you've done much research most interesting. A bit off topic but do you believe human ancestry traces back things like these? Really doubtful imo. All genetic, E.R.V, and fossil evidence places hem outside the human family line and into their own little groups. Amoeba are way off our tree and sea snails are closer to other molluscs such as other snails and slugs in Gastropoda and cephalopods. Humans are part of the subphylum Vertebrae (all members of phylum Chordata with a vertebrae.) |
DGN (OP) User ID: 76193900 United States 03/05/2018 04:31 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So we’ve never seen new organisms arise inferno of us? I think scientists disagree..here are some science papers on evolution that we observed. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76110400 [link to bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com (secure)] ^ Plasmid becoming a virus. [link to www.pnas.org] ^ Sea slugs obtaining photosynthetic capabilities. [link to www.sciencedirect.com (secure)] ^ An amoeba becoming a new group, currently on the process of developing a photosynthetic organelle. I see you've done much research most interesting. A bit off topic but do you believe human ancestry traces back things like these? Really doubtful imo. All genetic, E.R.V, and fossil evidence places hem outside the human family line and into their own little groups. Amoeba are way off our tree and sea snails are closer to other molluscs such as other snails and slugs in Gastropoda and cephalopods. Humans are part of the subphylum Vertebrae (all members of phylum Chordata with a vertebrae.) Do you believe creatures with vertebrates are descendants from a common ancestor or have a common creator? Last Edited by DGN on 03/05/2018 04:32 PM |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76330121 United States 03/06/2018 04:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So we’ve never seen new organisms arise inferno of us? I think scientists disagree..here are some science papers on evolution that we observed. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76110400 [link to bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com (secure)] ^ Plasmid becoming a virus. [link to www.pnas.org] ^ Sea slugs obtaining photosynthetic capabilities. [link to www.sciencedirect.com (secure)] ^ An amoeba becoming a new group, currently on the process of developing a photosynthetic organelle. I see you've done much research most interesting. A bit off topic but do you believe human ancestry traces back things like these? Really doubtful imo. All genetic, E.R.V, and fossil evidence places hem outside the human family line and into their own little groups. Amoeba are way off our tree and sea snails are closer to other molluscs such as other snails and slugs in Gastropoda and cephalopods. Humans are part of the subphylum Vertebrae (all members of phylum Chordata with a vertebrae.) Do you believe creatures with vertebrates are descendants from a common ancestor or have a common creator? Common ancestor. Too much implies they come from one another to ignore. |
DGN (OP) User ID: 76193900 United States 03/06/2018 05:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: DGN I see you've done much research most interesting. A bit off topic but do you believe human ancestry traces back things like these? Really doubtful imo. All genetic, E.R.V, and fossil evidence places hem outside the human family line and into their own little groups. Amoeba are way off our tree and sea snails are closer to other molluscs such as other snails and slugs in Gastropoda and cephalopods. Humans are part of the subphylum Vertebrae (all members of phylum Chordata with a vertebrae.) Do you believe creatures with vertebrates are descendants from a common ancestor or have a common creator? Common ancestor. Too much implies they come from one another to ignore. Except the imaginary missing links but, one can just pretend long as everybody sticks to their story, scientific proof is soooo old school anyway, it just never worked out. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 72531636 United States 03/06/2018 06:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76110400 Really doubtful imo. All genetic, E.R.V, and fossil evidence places hem outside the human family line and into their own little groups. Amoeba are way off our tree and sea snails are closer to other molluscs such as other snails and slugs in Gastropoda and cephalopods. Humans are part of the subphylum Vertebrae (all members of phylum Chordata with a vertebrae.) Do you believe creatures with vertebrates are descendants from a common ancestor or have a common creator? Common ancestor. Too much implies they come from one another to ignore. Except the imaginary missing links but, one can just pretend long as everybody sticks to their story, scientific proof is soooo old school anyway, it just never worked out. We have a literal non-stop chain of human fossils.... |
DGN (OP) User ID: 76193900 United States 03/06/2018 07:12 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: DGN Do you believe creatures with vertebrates are descendants from a common ancestor or have a common creator? Common ancestor. Too much implies they come from one another to ignore. Except the imaginary missing links but, one can just pretend long as everybody sticks to their story, scientific proof is soooo old school anyway, it just never worked out. We have a literal non-stop chain of human fossils.... Yes because those people actually existed, their bones prove it. The fun part is pretending once upon a time they were monkeys that magically mutated upward and turned into humans. Don't ask for the millions of remains of them half way there just trust me, I know big secrets and am above questioning. BTW I was an Apollo moon walker and I don't like questions about that either Last Edited by DGN on 03/06/2018 07:21 PM |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 75814481 Australia 03/07/2018 02:29 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76330121 Common ancestor. Too much implies they come from one another to ignore. Except the imaginary missing links but, one can just pretend long as everybody sticks to their story, scientific proof is soooo old school anyway, it just never worked out. We have a literal non-stop chain of human fossils.... Yes because those people actually existed, their bones prove it. The fun part is pretending once upon a time they were monkeys that magically mutated upward and turned into humans. Don't ask for the millions of remains of them half way there just trust me, I know big secrets and am above questioning. BTW I was an Apollo moon walker and I don't like questions about that either I believe he's referring to hominin fossils. I know you'll just ignore this and keep saying they don't exist, but here are some examples: *Ardipithecus Ramidus *Australopithecus Afarensis *Australopithecus Africanus *Homo Habilis *Homo Rudolfensis *Homo Erectus Information here: [link to humanorigins.si.edu] |
DGN (OP) User ID: 76193900 United States 03/07/2018 10:27 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: DGN Except the imaginary missing links but, one can just pretend long as everybody sticks to their story, scientific proof is soooo old school anyway, it just never worked out. We have a literal non-stop chain of human fossils.... Yes because those people actually existed, their bones prove it. The fun part is pretending once upon a time they were monkeys that magically mutated upward and turned into humans. Don't ask for the millions of remains of them half way there just trust me, I know big secrets and am above questioning. BTW I was an Apollo moon walker and I don't like questions about that either I believe he's referring to hominin fossils. I know you'll just ignore this and keep saying they don't exist, but here are some examples: *Ardipithecus Ramidus *Australopithecus Afarensis *Australopithecus Africanus *Homo Habilis *Homo Rudolfensis *Homo Erectus Information here: [link to humanorigins.si.edu] Nice family groups, so what, zero fossil record any turned into the other. I'm supposed to believe thatbecause Professor Darwin said 'once upon a time.... but no transitional links...... finches reinvented their own beaks.... and your grandpa was a gorilla......? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 75814481 Australia 03/07/2018 02:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Yes because those people actually existed, their bones prove it. The fun part is pretending once upon a time they were monkeys that magically mutated upward and turned into humans. Don't ask for the millions of remains of them half way there just trust me, I know big secrets and am above questioning. BTW I was an Apollo moon walker and I don't like questions about that either I believe he's referring to hominin fossils. I know you'll just ignore this and keep saying they don't exist, but here are some examples: *Ardipithecus Ramidus *Australopithecus Afarensis *Australopithecus Africanus *Homo Habilis *Homo Rudolfensis *Homo Erectus Information here: [link to humanorigins.si.edu] Nice family groups, so what, zero fossil record any turned into the other. I'm supposed to believe thatbecause Professor Darwin said 'once upon a time.... but no transitional links...... finches reinvented their own beaks.... and your grandpa was a gorilla......? How exactly would we identify a 'fossil record of any turning into the other?' In other words, if evolution were true, what would a transitional fossil look like exactly? How would it be different to what we see right now? |
DGN (OP) User ID: 76193900 United States 03/07/2018 03:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: DGN Yes because those people actually existed, their bones prove it. The fun part is pretending once upon a time they were monkeys that magically mutated upward and turned into humans. Don't ask for the millions of remains of them half way there just trust me, I know big secrets and am above questioning. BTW I was an Apollo moon walker and I don't like questions about that either I believe he's referring to hominin fossils. I know you'll just ignore this and keep saying they don't exist, but here are some examples: *Ardipithecus Ramidus *Australopithecus Afarensis *Australopithecus Africanus *Homo Habilis *Homo Rudolfensis *Homo Erectus Information here: [link to humanorigins.si.edu] Nice family groups, so what, zero fossil record any turned into the other. I'm supposed to believe thatbecause Professor Darwin said 'once upon a time.... but no transitional links...... finches reinvented their own beaks.... and your grandpa was a gorilla......? How exactly would we identify a 'fossil record of any turning into the other?' In other words, if evolution were true, what would a transitional fossil look like exactly? How would it be different to what we see right now? You would need to scientifically color pencil in a few thousand generations of 99.999% this, 00.001% that in transition, 99.998% this 00.002% that and so on until one species turned into another one, like an Easter Bunny hunt for the Sci-Fy Cult of Evolution. Conveniently no such evidence is required by the faith, Pastor Darwin's word is sufficient. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 72531636 United States 03/07/2018 09:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 75814481 I believe he's referring to hominin fossils. I know you'll just ignore this and keep saying they don't exist, but here are some examples: *Ardipithecus Ramidus *Australopithecus Afarensis *Australopithecus Africanus *Homo Habilis *Homo Rudolfensis *Homo Erectus Information here: [link to humanorigins.si.edu] Nice family groups, so what, zero fossil record any turned into the other. I'm supposed to believe thatbecause Professor Darwin said 'once upon a time.... but no transitional links...... finches reinvented their own beaks.... and your grandpa was a gorilla......? How exactly would we identify a 'fossil record of any turning into the other?' In other words, if evolution were true, what would a transitional fossil look like exactly? How would it be different to what we see right now? You would need to scientifically color pencil in a few thousand generations of 99.999% this, 00.001% that in transition, 99.998% this 00.002% that and so on until one species turned into another one, like an Easter Bunny hunt for the Sci-Fy Cult of Evolution. Conveniently no such evidence is required by the faith, Pastor Darwin's word is sufficient. We have that with human fossils, and it's backed up by D.N.A "records." [link to i.pinimg.com (secure)] |
DGN (OP) User ID: 76193900 United States 03/07/2018 09:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: DGN Nice family groups, so what, zero fossil record any turned into the other. I'm supposed to believe thatbecause Professor Darwin said 'once upon a time.... but no transitional links...... finches reinvented their own beaks.... and your grandpa was a gorilla......? How exactly would we identify a 'fossil record of any turning into the other?' In other words, if evolution were true, what would a transitional fossil look like exactly? How would it be different to what we see right now? You would need to scientifically color pencil in a few thousand generations of 99.999% this, 00.001% that in transition, 99.998% this 00.002% that and so on until one species turned into another one, like an Easter Bunny hunt for the Sci-Fy Cult of Evolution. Conveniently no such evidence is required by the faith, Pastor Darwin's word is sufficient. We have that with human fossils, and it's backed up by D.N.A "records." [link to i.pinimg.com (secure)] What a joke, there is zero reason to pretend any of these turned into the other, the total lack of transitional fossil remains proves it. Their DNA records proves their individualism, from their common creator. BYW found any Easter bunny eggs lately? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 72531636 United States 03/07/2018 09:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 75814481 How exactly would we identify a 'fossil record of any turning into the other?' In other words, if evolution were true, what would a transitional fossil look like exactly? How would it be different to what we see right now? You would need to scientifically color pencil in a few thousand generations of 99.999% this, 00.001% that in transition, 99.998% this 00.002% that and so on until one species turned into another one, like an Easter Bunny hunt for the Sci-Fy Cult of Evolution. Conveniently no such evidence is required by the faith, Pastor Darwin's word is sufficient. We have that with human fossils, and it's backed up by D.N.A "records." [link to i.pinimg.com (secure)] What a joke, there is zero reason to pretend any of these turned into the other, the total lack of transitional fossil remains proves it. Their DNA records proves their individualism, from their common creator. BYW found any Easter bunny eggs lately? The order they appear in, gradually shifting from the chimpanzee skull to a modern human skull, and D.N.A evidence collected from them all points to evolution of humans and chimpanzees from a recent common ancestor, and humans from those earlier human species. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 75227854 Kazakhstan 03/07/2018 09:35 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 72531636 United States 03/07/2018 09:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Because genes for a tail are the living proof of the process evolution and living proof of the counter process of devolution at work! ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny! Speaking of development, I remember reading that a computer simulation or calculator, one of the two, determined that eyes could evolve from a patch of photo-sensitive skin within less than a million years. |
DGN (OP) User ID: 76193900 United States 03/07/2018 09:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: DGN You would need to scientifically color pencil in a few thousand generations of 99.999% this, 00.001% that in transition, 99.998% this 00.002% that and so on until one species turned into another one, like an Easter Bunny hunt for the Sci-Fy Cult of Evolution. Conveniently no such evidence is required by the faith, Pastor Darwin's word is sufficient. We have that with human fossils, and it's backed up by D.N.A "records." [link to i.pinimg.com (secure)] What a joke, there is zero reason to pretend any of these turned into the other, the total lack of transitional fossil remains proves it. Their DNA records proves their individualism, from their common creator. BYW found any Easter bunny eggs lately? The order they appear in, gradually shifting from the chimpanzee skull to a modern human skull, and D.N.A evidence collected from them all points to evolution of humans and chimpanzees from a recent common ancestor, and humans from those earlier human species. If they gradually 'shifted/evolved' from chimps to humans there would be no more chimps and millions of real remains of half way, in transition, fossils which not a single one has ever been found. Their similarities reveals each creature is uniquely designed by their common creator. It's most fashionable to claim apes and humans 'evolved' from a common ancestor, provided you don't get called on it, like Professor Dawkins did. Pardon me Professor, did you forget your magic crayolas, because I see no common ancestor? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 75814481 Australia 03/08/2018 01:22 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72531636 We have that with human fossils, and it's backed up by D.N.A "records." [link to i.pinimg.com (secure)] What a joke, there is zero reason to pretend any of these turned into the other, the total lack of transitional fossil remains proves it. Their DNA records proves their individualism, from their common creator. BYW found any Easter bunny eggs lately? The order they appear in, gradually shifting from the chimpanzee skull to a modern human skull, and D.N.A evidence collected from them all points to evolution of humans and chimpanzees from a recent common ancestor, and humans from those earlier human species. If they gradually 'shifted/evolved' from chimps to humans there would be no more chimps... Wrong. Dogs come from wolves, yet there are still wolves. Although we didn't actually come from chimps. ...and millions of real remains of half way, in transition, fossils which not a single one has ever been found. Quoting: DGN *Australopithecus Afarensis is dated to about 4 million years old. It has a brain roughly the size of a chimp's, teeth smaller than a chimp's and it is bipedal. *Homo Habilis is dated to about 2.5 million years old. It has a brain that is larger than the Australopithecus and its teeth are smaller than the Australopithecus. *Homo Erectus is dated to about 1.8 million years old. Its brain is bigger than Homo Habilis (roughly half way between the size of a chimp and a human) and it's teeth were smaller (proportionately almost as small as human teeth). *Homo Heidelbergensis is dated to about 700,000 years old. Its brain is bigger than Homo Erectus, but still smaller than modern humans. Its teeth are pretty much human looking. [link to humanorigins.si.edu] Please, give me a serious answer. What should the fossil record should look like if evolution theory is correct? How is that different to what we see here? |
DGN (OP) User ID: 76193900 United States 03/08/2018 10:33 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: DGN What a joke, there is zero reason to pretend any of these turned into the other, the total lack of transitional fossil remains proves it. Their DNA records proves their individualism, from their common creator. BYW found any Easter bunny eggs lately? The order they appear in, gradually shifting from the chimpanzee skull to a modern human skull, and D.N.A evidence collected from them all points to evolution of humans and chimpanzees from a recent common ancestor, and humans from those earlier human species. If they gradually 'shifted/evolved' from chimps to humans there would be no more chimps... Wrong. Dogs come from wolves, yet there are still wolves. Although we didn't actually come from chimps. ...and millions of real remains of half way, in transition, fossils which not a single one has ever been found. Quoting: DGN *Australopithecus Afarensis is dated to about 4 million years old. It has a brain roughly the size of a chimp's, teeth smaller than a chimp's and it is bipedal. *Homo Habilis is dated to about 2.5 million years old. It has a brain that is larger than the Australopithecus and its teeth are smaller than the Australopithecus. *Homo Erectus is dated to about 1.8 million years old. Its brain is bigger than Homo Habilis (roughly half way between the size of a chimp and a human) and it's teeth were smaller (proportionately almost as small as human teeth). *Homo Heidelbergensis is dated to about 700,000 years old. Its brain is bigger than Homo Erectus, but still smaller than modern humans. Its teeth are pretty much human looking. [link to humanorigins.si.edu] Please, give me a serious answer. What should the fossil record should look like if evolution theory is correct? How is that different to what we see here? No,dogs come from dogs, wolves make more wolves. If real creatures are the result of millions of generations of minute mutations there would be no specific creatures to connect the dots to. Nothing but a blur. You have to crayola in millions of in between creatures because none will ever be found. This is not an issue with evolutionists, start drawing. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76337860 United States 03/08/2018 11:34 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72531636 The order they appear in, gradually shifting from the chimpanzee skull to a modern human skull, and D.N.A evidence collected from them all points to evolution of humans and chimpanzees from a recent common ancestor, and humans from those earlier human species. If they gradually 'shifted/evolved' from chimps to humans there would be no more chimps... Wrong. Dogs come from wolves, yet there are still wolves. Although we didn't actually come from chimps. ...and millions of real remains of half way, in transition, fossils which not a single one has ever been found. Quoting: DGN *Australopithecus Afarensis is dated to about 4 million years old. It has a brain roughly the size of a chimp's, teeth smaller than a chimp's and it is bipedal. *Homo Habilis is dated to about 2.5 million years old. It has a brain that is larger than the Australopithecus and its teeth are smaller than the Australopithecus. *Homo Erectus is dated to about 1.8 million years old. Its brain is bigger than Homo Habilis (roughly half way between the size of a chimp and a human) and it's teeth were smaller (proportionately almost as small as human teeth). *Homo Heidelbergensis is dated to about 700,000 years old. Its brain is bigger than Homo Erectus, but still smaller than modern humans. Its teeth are pretty much human looking. [link to humanorigins.si.edu] Please, give me a serious answer. What should the fossil record should look like if evolution theory is correct? How is that different to what we see here? No,dogs come from dogs, wolves make more wolves. If real creatures are the result of millions of generations of minute mutations there would be no specific creatures to connect the dots to. Nothing but a blur. You have to crayola in millions of in between creatures because none will ever be found. This is not an issue with evolutionists, start drawing. We know for a fact dogs come from dogs considering they are just the result of domesticated wolves. There are also plenty of “blur” creatures. Platypus as an early mammal with a few snaps of reptile features, half wasp half ants in amber, flatworms as extremely simple bilaterals. |
DGN (OP) User ID: 76193900 United States 03/08/2018 04:52 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: DGN If they gradually 'shifted/evolved' from chimps to humans there would be no more chimps... Wrong. Dogs come from wolves, yet there are still wolves. Although we didn't actually come from chimps. ...and millions of real remains of half way, in transition, fossils which not a single one has ever been found. Quoting: DGN *Australopithecus Afarensis is dated to about 4 million years old. It has a brain roughly the size of a chimp's, teeth smaller than a chimp's and it is bipedal. *Homo Habilis is dated to about 2.5 million years old. It has a brain that is larger than the Australopithecus and its teeth are smaller than the Australopithecus. *Homo Erectus is dated to about 1.8 million years old. Its brain is bigger than Homo Habilis (roughly half way between the size of a chimp and a human) and it's teeth were smaller (proportionately almost as small as human teeth). *Homo Heidelbergensis is dated to about 700,000 years old. Its brain is bigger than Homo Erectus, but still smaller than modern humans. Its teeth are pretty much human looking. [link to humanorigins.si.edu] Please, give me a serious answer. What should the fossil record should look like if evolution theory is correct? How is that different to what we see here? No,dogs come from dogs, wolves make more wolves. If real creatures are the result of millions of generations of minute mutations there would be no specific creatures to connect the dots to. Nothing but a blur. You have to crayola in millions of in between creatures because none will ever be found. This is not an issue with evolutionists, start drawing. We know for a fact dogs come from dogs considering they are just the result of domesticated wolves. There are also plenty of “blur” creatures. Platypus as an early mammal with a few snaps of reptile features, half wasp half ants in amber, flatworms as extremely simple bilaterals. I like that, so tell me what did the Platypus used to be? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 72531636 United States 03/08/2018 07:18 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 75814481 Wrong. Dogs come from wolves, yet there are still wolves. Although we didn't actually come from chimps. ... *Australopithecus Afarensis is dated to about 4 million years old. It has a brain roughly the size of a chimp's, teeth smaller than a chimp's and it is bipedal. *Homo Habilis is dated to about 2.5 million years old. It has a brain that is larger than the Australopithecus and its teeth are smaller than the Australopithecus. *Homo Erectus is dated to about 1.8 million years old. Its brain is bigger than Homo Habilis (roughly half way between the size of a chimp and a human) and it's teeth were smaller (proportionately almost as small as human teeth). *Homo Heidelbergensis is dated to about 700,000 years old. Its brain is bigger than Homo Erectus, but still smaller than modern humans. Its teeth are pretty much human looking. [link to humanorigins.si.edu] Please, give me a serious answer. What should the fossil record should look like if evolution theory is correct? How is that different to what we see here? No,dogs come from dogs, wolves make more wolves. If real creatures are the result of millions of generations of minute mutations there would be no specific creatures to connect the dots to. Nothing but a blur. You have to crayola in millions of in between creatures because none will ever be found. This is not an issue with evolutionists, start drawing. We know for a fact dogs come from dogs considering they are just the result of domesticated wolves. There are also plenty of “blur” creatures. Platypus as an early mammal with a few snaps of reptile features, half wasp half ants in amber, flatworms as extremely simple bilaterals. I like that, so tell me what did the Platypus used to be? The platypus still is a mammal, and has mammallian ancestors, but is a representative of the more primitive mammals and their ancestor groups, such as cydodonts. It still has a BUNCH of genes that are found in reptiles, and plenty of characteristics of reptiles (and their bird descendants) too, such as laying eggs and venom. |
DGN (OP) User ID: 76193900 United States 03/08/2018 08:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: DGN No,dogs come from dogs, wolves make more wolves. If real creatures are the result of millions of generations of minute mutations there would be no specific creatures to connect the dots to. Nothing but a blur. You have to crayola in millions of in between creatures because none will ever be found. This is not an issue with evolutionists, start drawing. We know for a fact dogs come from dogs considering they are just the result of domesticated wolves. There are also plenty of “blur” creatures. Platypus as an early mammal with a few snaps of reptile features, half wasp half ants in amber, flatworms as extremely simple bilaterals. I like that, so tell me what did the Platypus used to be? The platypus still is a mammal, and has mammallian ancestors, but is a representative of the more primitive mammals and their ancestor groups, such as cydodonts. It still has a BUNCH of genes that are found in reptiles, and plenty of characteristics of reptiles (and their bird descendants) too, such as laying eggs and venom. The ancestor of every Platypus is grandpa Platypus, nothing else ever turned into one and no Platypus will ever turn into anything else. Darwin's morph around the merry go roundhoax is still ridiculing believers gullibility after 150 years of failing to find one single missing link. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 72531636 United States 03/08/2018 09:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76337860 We know for a fact dogs come from dogs considering they are just the result of domesticated wolves. There are also plenty of “blur” creatures. Platypus as an early mammal with a few snaps of reptile features, half wasp half ants in amber, flatworms as extremely simple bilaterals. I like that, so tell me what did the Platypus used to be? The platypus still is a mammal, and has mammallian ancestors, but is a representative of the more primitive mammals and their ancestor groups, such as cydodonts. It still has a BUNCH of genes that are found in reptiles, and plenty of characteristics of reptiles (and their bird descendants) too, such as laying eggs and venom. The ancestor of every Platypus is grandpa Platypus, nothing else ever turned into one and no Platypus will ever turn into anything else. Darwin's morph around the merry go roundhoax is still ridiculing believers gullibility after 150 years of failing to find one single missing link. No missing links? First, can you define what you want as a missing link? |
DGN (OP) User ID: 76193900 United States 03/08/2018 10:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The platypus still is a mammal, and has mammallian ancestors, but is a representative of the more primitive mammals and their ancestor groups, such as cydodonts. It still has a BUNCH of genes that are found in reptiles, and plenty of characteristics of reptiles (and their bird descendants) too, such as laying eggs and venom. The ancestor of every Platypus is grandpa Platypus, nothing else ever turned into one and no Platypus will ever turn into anything else. Darwin's morph around the merry go roundhoax is still ridiculing believers gullibility after 150 years of failing to find one single missing link. No missing links? First, can you define what you want as a missing link? The magical mutation makes it better, not deformed, theory claims every species turned into a better one gradually by millions of tiny mutations, over millions of generations of upgrades. These do not exist in the fossil record so evolutionists simply skip such scientific heresy and connect real creatures together with colored pencils and say 'see, it really happened in giant steps, we don't need no stinking science ...we're evolutionists!' Professor Darwin RULES! Last Edited by DGN on 03/08/2018 10:11 PM |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 72531636 United States 03/08/2018 10:31 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72531636 The platypus still is a mammal, and has mammallian ancestors, but is a representative of the more primitive mammals and their ancestor groups, such as cydodonts. It still has a BUNCH of genes that are found in reptiles, and plenty of characteristics of reptiles (and their bird descendants) too, such as laying eggs and venom. The ancestor of every Platypus is grandpa Platypus, nothing else ever turned into one and no Platypus will ever turn into anything else. Darwin's morph around the merry go roundhoax is still ridiculing believers gullibility after 150 years of failing to find one single missing link. No missing links? First, can you define what you want as a missing link? The magical mutation makes it better, not deformed, theory claims every species turned into a better one gradually by millions of tiny mutations, over millions of generations of upgrades. These do not exist in the fossil record so evolutionists simply skip such scientific heresy and connect real creatures together with colored pencils and say 'see, it really happened in giant steps, we don't need no stinking science ...we're evolutionists!' Professor Darwin RULES! Disagreeable. Look at ants and wasps. Genetic evidence suggests that ants are the descendants of a group of wasps, and a particular insect found in Cretaceous amber known as Sphecomyrma, has scientists in a debate on if it should be classified as an ant, a wasp, or an intermediate insect, as it has the features of both groups, just like genetics implied. Another, more famous transitional creature, Archeopteryx, is a pretty good example. It has many features of modern birds (feathers, hollow bones, flexible legs) and combines those with features found only in theropod raptors (sickle claw, bony tail, toothed mouth.) |
DGN (OP) User ID: 76193900 United States 03/08/2018 10:38 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: DGN The ancestor of every Platypus is grandpa Platypus, nothing else ever turned into one and no Platypus will ever turn into anything else. Darwin's morph around the merry go roundhoax is still ridiculing believers gullibility after 150 years of failing to find one single missing link. No missing links? First, can you define what you want as a missing link? The magical mutation makes it better, not deformed, theory claims every species turned into a better one gradually by millions of tiny mutations, over millions of generations of upgrades. These do not exist in the fossil record so evolutionists simply skip such scientific heresy and connect real creatures together with colored pencils and say 'see, it really happened in giant steps, we don't need no stinking science ...we're evolutionists!' Professor Darwin RULES! Disagreeable. Look at ants and wasps. Genetic evidence suggests that ants are the descendants of a group of wasps, and a particular insect found in Cretaceous amber known as Sphecomyrma, has scientists in a debate on if it should be classified as an ant, a wasp, or an intermediate insect, as it has the features of both groups, just like genetics implied. Another, more famous transitional creature, Archeopteryx, is a pretty good example. It has many features of modern birds (feathers, hollow bones, flexible legs) and combines those with features found only in theropod raptors (sickle claw, bony tail, toothed mouth.) The evidence doesn't suggest ants turned into wasps, it simply proves the bug existed, nothing else. As for dinosaurs devolving into birds, well yeah their similarities are virtually indistinguishable, like with bulldogs and butterflies. Did you know that's where butterflies came from? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 72531636 United States 03/08/2018 10:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The evidence doesn't suggest ants turned into wasps, it simply proves the bug existed, nothing else. Quoting: DGN As for dinosaurs devolving into birds, well yeah their similarities are virtually indistinguishable, like with bulldogs and butterflies. Did you know that's where butterflies came from? It one hundred percent suggest that wasps became ants. Genetic and E.R.V samples already line up and show that ants are closely related and that one descended from the other, and the amber remains only verify it by giving us a literal "half ant, half wasp" insect. Same thing with the birds, just with fossils instead of amber. |