lpetrich

I think that this guy is misunderstanding the famous mis-discovery of Hesperopithecus, which turned out to be the tooth of an extinct peccary. Human/ape and pig/peccary molars look rather similar, unless one looks closely at them.

thebeast

You got it right WWSD...

In a nutshell, evolution is quackery.

Perfect for quacks...

Demigawd

ooOOOooooOOoo was much more entertaining than this guy. Thebeast, you are mediocre troll.

Ab_Normal

Yeah, but ooOOOoOooo... whatever... was hard on the eyes. At least I can read and understand thebeast. (Which also leads to a headache, but of a different sort.)

KnightWhoSaysNi

Hmmm, okay, let's see you shatter this one --

Most mammals are capable of synthesizing their own Vitamin C. Humans and other primates cannot. We have to get our Vit. C by ingesting fruits and vegetables or we'll get sick. However, humans and primates do in fact possess the gene that allows the synthesis of Vit. C. The problem is that the gene has been switched off and rendered non-functional by a mutation and it is now a pseudogene. Our diets were rich in Vit. C anyway, so the mutation wasn't harmful.

So let's apply Occam's Razor. If each of the primates are special creations, then why the hell would god create them all with a non-functional gene? Or perhaps would you agree then that our ancestors used to be able to synthesize our own Vit. C? Maybe "the Fall" caused this mutation in primates. Then why the hell do all the primate species (including humans) have the exact same mutation? Coincidence?

Or perhaps, the "quacks" are right and that the primates had a common ancestor. One of our very distant ancestors experienced this mutation that was passed on to future generations and future species (in this case, all primates).

If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then it probably is a duck. How's that for a 'quack'?

Source:29 Evidences for Macro-evolution: molecular vestigial characters

Demigawd

Ok, I can see that, but what I'm asserting is thebeast has no entertainment value. All he/she/it is doing is saying "scientific theories are stupid". Proper trolls such as ooOOoooOOoo offer up such gems as "God will smoke you".

pz

You've failed to make any kind of rational argument here.

The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. It is a theory developed by physicists to explain observations of the universe. Evolution is a theory developed by biologists to explain observations of organisms.

Nebraska "Man" was largely a construction of journalists, who inflated a preliminary and erroneous classification of a fossil tooth into a grand story. It was not and is not any part of the evidence for evolution.

Entirely contrary to your unfounded assertion, the postulates of evolution have been thoroughly verified by science. Evolution is a complex subject that has not been completely plumbed, so new things are constantly being discovered; don't mistake the normal pattern of revision and expansion of scientific theories for "dogma shattering". We don't deal in dogmas, and nothing in evolutionary biology has been shattered.

thebeast

Can you give one example of evolutionary proof.

One transient specie?

How about the apeman, did you find that one? how about the fishman? no, how about the birddog? Or the snaketree? Where's that one...? How about let's say, upside down trees that cross over many stratas of rock... how do you explain that?

Who said radio-isotopes were to begin with pure elements?
Is that a valid assumption to make?

Or is it all some voodoo science?

WWSD

Originally posted by thebeast
Can you give one example of evolutionary proof.

I think the vitamin C scenario is good evidence.


One transient specie?

We're all transient you know, here one day, gone the next...


How about the apeman, did you find that one? how about the fishman? no, how about the birddog? Or the snaketree?

Obviously you haven't any real idea what you are going on about.


Where's that one...? How about let's say, upside down trees that cross over many stratas of rock... how do you explain that?

Here ya go, polystrate trees.


Who said radio-isotopes were to begin with pure elements?

What?


Is that a valid assumption to make?


More valid than:
or


Or is it all some voodoo science?


Real Voodoo "Science"

PandaJoe

A link to 29 has already been posted.

Oh, I get it. You aren't serious. Please leave.