Sci-Fy Cult, how did the first embryo survive waiting a million years for mindless 'evolution' to design/construct/connect it's umbilic

Maybe the embryo waited..... until the umbilical cord.... appeared?

The Sci-FY Cult of evolution has no champion to defend it's fantasy faith?

oh my god.... you really do know nothing about evolution.. you have been on here over 10 years and you still haven't bothered to study evolution

It's a science fiction religion, faith in NON-intelligent design with ZERO fossil trails to prove deforming mutations = precision form and function, for no purpose at all. Denying it doesn't mean I don't understand the theory, it's sci-FY superstition, a hoax on the simpletons who submit and believe what they're told, regardless.

Last Edited by DGN on 08/05/2018 10:28 AM

But you don't even know what you are rejecting, you have time and time again proven you don't know what the theory is.

There's absolutely NO proof of YOUR religion. Tearing down a evolution, doesn't make a case for magical a being in the sky. Your ignorance is mind boggling

I know I'm so ignorant I can't even believe I don't get it. I should have gone to the university where they're hiding a million transitional fossils only the elite can view.

BASIC FUCKING BIOLOGY FUCKWIT
you really are getting worse and worse

Well explained, precise, articulate, university caliber scientific expression.

You don't know what a transitional fossil is because you don't know what the theory is. what you are thinking of is something else, not evolution.

I know what it is, a phantom of your imagination. Professor Darwin himself admitted there are none, his theory was just made up regardless.

No, you are after something retarded like 80% one animal 20% the other. That isn't evolution. You keep wanting it to be evolution so you can say evolution is stupid. The evolution you reject IS stupid. What you reject is not the theory of evolution, it is some ignorant creationist version of evolution.

Last Edited by Kakarot_ on 08/06/2018 04:40 AM

no baby ever could have grown up without a parent.
thats a whole new level of chicken/egg debate.

Darwin admitted it was theory not science and if no transitional fossils are found within 100 years the theory should be abandoned.

what the fuck is wrong with you?

Ask Dr Psychenheimer he has a grand scroll of my weekly visits but he'll charge $100 for a printout.
NOTE: He did however extend Professor Darwin's 100 year search limit to find at least one transitional fossil trail to 200 years. This is highly applauded by his Church of Evolution and their faith in mutation makes it better no matter what is observed.


Last Edited by DGN on 08/06/2018 09:04 PM

Ok maybe evolution just skipped over that step by natural selection which filled in the missing parts at a more convenient time?

This is what darwin actually said:



Fossilization is extremely rare. It takes natural disasters for fossilization to occur, in general. Like volcanos or flooding or mudslides. They don't normally just fossilize when they die. So how is there supposed to be a "fossil trail"? If you think evolution needs fossil trails, where is the fossil trail of wolves to chihuahuas? That is not how evolution works.




"better"? if you mean adaptation to their environments yes but there is no "absolute" better, it is only subjective. Fish are "better" than humans at living under water. There are even fish that can live in water or on land for 6 days. Mutations are not about making them absolute better. If a species change to a different environment they might die.

Last Edited by Kakarot_ on 08/13/2018 03:32 AM

Seems to be a rather weak bluff explanation don't you think? Resorting to.."that's a stupid question so if you don't know I'm not going to tell you"sort of thingy.


Last Edited by DGN on 02/11/2019 11:16 PM

"how did the first embryo survive waiting a million years for mindless 'evolution' to design/construct/connect it's umbilical cord?"


Probably the same way modern animals survive without umbilical cords.

From Google: All placental mammals have umbilical cords. In the wild, the mother often gnaws it off (it's very nutritious) after the baby is born.Mammals which don't have umbilical cords (non-placental mammals) include marsupials (kangaroos, koalas etc.) and monotremes (the platypus and the echidna lay eggs but are still mammals).

The question isn't about animals that don't have umbilical cords, but how did the ones that do survive before evolution invented them, without even knowing the embryos exist?

Obviously, animals that do have umbilical cords didn't exist before umbilical cords were 'invented.'

Animals without umbilical cords evolved into animals with umbilical cords. They survived just like they do today.

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 02/12/2019 02:33 PM

"Animals without umbilical cords evolved into animals with umbilical cords"
Explain the invention of the chord and how an embryo can live without it. Your obscure magic 'E' word connects zero dots and there is no mechanism in nature to account for for such incredible technology.

Last Edited by DGN on 02/12/2019 11:23 PM

How can an embryo live without it? The same way they do today. Not all animals have umbilical cords.

How did it come about? I haven't done any research into this, but I'll tell you what I know.

The umbilical cord attaches an embryo to the placenta in mammals. Evidence suggests that mammals evolved from reptiles in the Triassic. The first mammals laid eggs, like modern montremes (platypus and echidnas). After this, Therian mammals appear, which no longer lay eggs. Then Therians diverge into two groups, marsupials (which have a yolk sac, rather than a placenta) and placental mammals.

Evidence suggests there are reptiles and mammals,they are specifically designed for their role in the biosphere and neither are now or ever in the past turned into each other, everwhat's your point?

This is exactly what you believe to be true/real.

We are here to say this is not the case.

It gets even worse when you will be able to admit to yourself that you actually believe that the 1% evolved into the 100% by means of evotardism.

Here we are again. You the naturalist, convinced that gradualism is a real thing, although it has been debunked by its socalled founder and many after him, now you claim that others are looking at/for 20% this and 80% that? What exactly are the accurate percentages for your view on this gradualistic evolution then?

I'd really love it if you come back with some epic numbers.

DGN.. why do mammal embryos like humans form yolk sacs? We aren't birds. Yet we have three different sets of genes in our DNA for creation of yolk sacs.

[link to embryology.med.unsw.edu.au (secure)]

I'll put it in terms that maybe you can understand. Your arguments against evolution are as ignorant as someone reading Psalm 137:9 as their only Bible verse, proclaiming they have an understanding of Judaism and Christianity and that those faiths say the only path to happiness is bashing babies to death against rocks.

Is that an accurate portrayal of Judaism and Christianity? Or would you tell that person they are wrong because they have a false premise about those faiths from ignorance?

It's easy to just say things, but the difference is I can show you evidence for my position. You can't.
Reptiles appear in the fossil record first. Then a series of increasingly mammal-like reptiles (synapsids), followed by true mammals.

[link to www2.palomar.edu (secure)]

The genetic evidence, including ERVs, corroborate this sequence.

My point is that according to Evolution theory, modern species -with umbilical cords- always had them. They weren't waiting around for the umbilical cord to evolve.

Embryos require them like you stated.
"In mammals the yolk sac acts as a source of primordial germ cells and blood cells."