Since Evolution Is The Answer - Tell Me When Can I Expect To Grow My Wings And Fly

[ChumpDumper]

So before Darwin, no one had thought of the idea that we evolved from apes, not even the first western civilization in Mesopotamia. They believed in a deity and religion. They supposedly evolved from apes yet nowhere in their ancient writings do they mention evolving from apes. And why didn't they? Wouldn't they know their own history or where they came from? Seeing as their ancestors supposedly lived alongside Neanderthals and possibly even mated with them?Straw apes aside -- what kind of history do you think humans had 30,000 years ago?

Did they just make some notes on their iPads?

[Clipper Nation]

So you believe there was nothing that created everything because nothing decided to explode?
No, I believe the universe expanded from a hot and dense state and energy was separated into subatomic particles, and everything else came from there....

[RD2191]

RandomGuy all you are saying in layman terms is that your research has led you to believe in evolution. My research has led me to believe otherwise.

[Clipper Nation]

Takes faith doesn't it?:toast
Again, faith in physical scientific evidence, logic and reason is more valid than blind faith in a sky man and his fairy tales....

[ChumpDumper]

RandomGuy all you are saying in layman terms is that your research has led you to believe in evolution. My research has led me to believe otherwise.What have you actually researched?

[RandomGuy]

I do not know and you don't either, you are simply doing what I am doing. You are gathering your so called knowledge and information from books or the internet. Have you done any studies on the second law of thermodynamics? I highly doubt that you have. So then how do you know that you are right and that I am wrong? You don't. I have links and sources that claim the theory of evolution does violate the second law, you have sources that claim otherwise, so who is right?


The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics


The claims of creationists go like this:

"Evolution is order from chaos (entropy), therefore it violates the second law of thermodynamics, because disordered things (organic molecules) became more ordered. (long chain RNA, etc)"


The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18



"In the natural sciences an isolated system is a physical system without any external exchange – neither matter nor energy can enter or exit, but can only move around inside."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system

Now ask yourself:

"Is the Earth an isolated system?"

"Is the inside of a plankton cell living in the ocean an isolated system?"

Why or why not?


See, this is not difficult at all, and you don't ahve to take anybody's word for it. You can read on the subject yourself, as I have done.

[RD2191]

Its logical to believe that we came from nothing? And if we came from something what put that something there? Or has something always existed? leaving the possibility of a creator who has always existed open.

[RandomGuy]

RandomGuy all you are saying in layman terms is that your research has led you to believe in evolution. My research has led me to believe otherwise.

You haven't really done any research.

If you have done research, you might be able to explain what evolution actually *is* before deciding it is obviously wrong.

If you don't even understand the theory, how can you say you have done enough research to decide if it is true or not?

[Clipper Nation]

RandomGuy all you are saying in layman terms is that your research has led you to believe in evolution. My research has led me to believe otherwise.
You haven't researched at all, you read one site after already having decided it was full of shit and spammed a bunch of strawman arguments :lol

[Koolaid_Man]

I just want some hot wings

[Clipper Nation]

Its logical to believe that we came from nothing? And if we came from something what put that something there? Or has something always existed? leaving the possibility of a creator who has always existed open.
Again, we didn't come from nothing, we came from the universe expanding....

[TE]

Again, we didn't come from nothing, we came from the universe expanding....
Not necessarily. We came from elements cooked at the core of stars which then exploded and released the chemistry for life. Overtime these elements combined to form complex molecules -- both organic and inorganic.

We believe that to be the case because these complex organic molecules can be detected with instrumentation right now. Various amino acids conducive to life processes have been detected in areas of pristine gas clouds using this instrumentation...

[RD2191]

Evolution Could Never Happen at All

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.
No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18
The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.
Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?
Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19
This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.
The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.
Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.
From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.

[xmas1997]

Not necessarily. We came from elements cooked at the core of stars which then exploded and released the chemistry for life. Overtime these elements combined to form complex molecules -- both organic and inorganic.

We believe that to be the case because these complex organic molecules can be detected with instrumentation right now. Various amino acids conducive to life processes have been detected in areas of pristine gas clouds using this instrumentation...

This is true, although we have only just scratched the surface. It seems the more we uncover, the more we realize is still hidden and unexplained. Particle accelerators have even shown us that what we hitherto thought was empty space, is not really empty at all, that everything seems to be connected at the sub subatomic level. Thus we are all one with everything on an energy level.
Whether this is an explanation for God or not is still very much up in the air, but evolution theory does go a long ways in explaining things and IMHO does not contradict the existence of His being.
However we do know that we did not just magically appear one day when we didn't the day before. That is an extremely simplistic and naive viewpoint. And organisms are evolving now, even as we debate.
Macrocosm reflects microcosm and vice versa.

[ChumpDumper]

Evolution Could Never Happen at AllYou don't read anything you Google.

[Max Taber]

google doesn't do shit if you can't read.

[TE]

This is true, although we have only just scratched the surface. It seems the more we uncover, the more we realize is still hidden and unexplained.
In terms of detecting life, yes. As a field though, much of the astrochemistry that answers questions of how and where life began to originate has been blooming with new data for the last 15-20 years. Instead of scratching the surface, I'd say we are standing on it already with a blindfold on.


Particle accelerators have even shown us that what we hitherto thought was empty space, is not really empty at all, that everything seems to be connected at the sub subatomic level. Thus we are all one with everything on an energy level.

Hence, the beauty of it. Isn't it cool that everything and everyone is basically a wavefunction?

If there was one thing I took from my undergrad, it's that very idea tbh :lol


Whether this is an explanation for God or not is still very much up in the air, but evolution theory does go a long ways in explaining things and IMHO does not contradict the existence of His being.
Agreed.

However we do know that we did not just magically appear one day when we didn't the day before. That is an extremely simplistic and naive viewpoint. And organisms are evolving now, even as we debate.
Hence, the education going on in this thread.

[RD2191]

Biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

[xmas1997]

In terms of detecting life, yes. As a field though, much of the astrochemistry that answers questions of how and where life began to originate has been blooming with new data for the last 15-20 years. Instead of scratching the surface, I'd say we are standing on it already with a blindfold on.



Hence, the beauty of it. Isn't it cool that everything and everyone is basically a wavefunction?

If there was one thing I took from my undergrad, it's that very idea tbh :lol


Agreed.

Hence, the education going on in this thread.


This is true. Blindfolds is a great analogy for our tiny little minds. This is another reference for the "veils" spoken of in the bible in weird sort of way. Do you see the correlations?
My contention from everything I've studied, meditated on, and experienced up to this point has led me to believe of and in a "sky fairie" i.e. God. :lol
And my further contention is that we will eventually prove such a Ones existence scientifically because to my way of thinking, that is the only reasonable explanation, in fact it may eventually turn out to be man's greatest discovery, which ironically enough was first postulated a long, long time ago.
Of course at this point it is still an opinion, or mystery, or whatever you wish to call it.

[mouse]

I just want some hot wings

You want them now = Creation watch how you answer you will get branded as a religious freak.


Or maybe you want them 12 Billion years from now = Evolutionist watch how you answer you will get branded as a clueless douche.


Or we can end this argument by putting nothing into a bag and wait 12 Billion years for it to finally explode into matter that slowly evolves from microbe to a fish and then to a chicken.

Afterwards we can let this lady prepare your hot wings live on the www

http://www.sportsgrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/paula-deen-lawsuit.jpg


Darwin's bullshit was debunked years ago, you guys need to just move on already and try and figure out who or what is responsible.




http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/th_Proof-of-Alternative-design.jpg (http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/Proof-of-Alternative-design.mp4)

[DMC]

This is true. Blindfolds is a great analogy for our tiny little minds. This is another reference for the "veils" spoken of in the bible in weird sort of way. Do you see the correlations?
My contention from everything I've studied, meditated on, and experienced up to this point has led me to believe of and in a "sky fairie" i.e. God. :lol
And my further contention is that we will eventually prove such a Ones existence scientifically because to my way of thinking, that is the only reasonable explanation, in fact it may eventually turn out to be man's greatest discovery, which ironically enough was first postulated a long, long time ago.
Of course at this point it is still an opinion, or mystery, or whatever you wish to call it.

How much formal education do you have in the field of science?

[xmas1997]

How much formal education do you have in the field of science?

Quite a bit actually. Does it matter?
My majors were physics and psychology until I became disillusioned by the nebulous nature of psychology and dropped it and replaced it with philosophy. It is my opinion that psychology should have never been considered a science.
Physics was my eventual degree with philosophy as my minor and theatre as my pastime.

[DMC]

Quite a bit actually. Does it matter?
My majors were physics and psychology until I became disillusioned by the nebulous nature of psychology and dropped it and replaced it with philosophy. It is my opinion that psychology should have never been considered a science.
Physics was my eventual degree with philosophy as my minor and theatre as my pastime.

Psychology and philosophy aren't in the field of science. You said "physics". So you have a BS in Physics?

[RD2191]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/OohBurn.gif

[RD2191]

:lmao

[mouse]

How much formal education do you have in the field of science?


xmas1997 you are so screwed!


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/th_Alternative-Design-003.jpg (http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/Alternative-Design-003.mp4)

[TE]

There isn't much to do in La Villa but post gifs and wonder where the fuck we come from, eh? :lol

[xmas1997]

Psychology and philosophy aren't in the field of science. You said "physics". So you have a BS in Physics?

Yes, but actually psychologists think their degree to be among the sciences.
You are correct about philosophy.
What about you?

[RD2191]

Its a pretty boring town tbh.

[ohmwrecker]

The only pro-evolution evidence I need is to see the people who argue against it.

[xmas1997]

The only pro-evolution evidence I need is to see the people who argue against it.

:lmao

[TE]

Its a pretty boring town tbh.
tbh do you ball?

[RD2191]

Still in the Valley TE?

[TE]

yep

[RD2191]

Play basketball? naw man, back in high school but not anymore

[DMC]

Yes, but actually psychologists think their degree to be among the sciences.
You are correct about philosophy.
What about you?

It's not, because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.

Sure some online universities offer a BS in Psychology, from the UT website:

College of Liberal Arts Department of Psychology


BA, major in Psychology (http://www.psych.txstate.edu/)


I'm familiar with science.

Do you base your discussions on philosophy, theology or science? Or do you try to hybrid them together and if so, to what end? Theology discounts all other studies that point away from God as the prime mover.

[TE]

I usually go to the university on days like today to ball with them niggas, your welcome to come.

[RD2191]

Pan Am?

[DMC]

xmas1997 you are so screwed!


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/th_Alternative-Design-003.jpg (http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/Alternative-Design-003.mp4)

We all know you're a cum laude from MIT.

[TE]

yeah

[mouse]

What is lost in all this is the fact some things "Evolve" look at a caterpillar into a butterfly or an egg into a chicken.

I many times make the mistake of labeling an Atheist with someone who supports Darwin and that isn't always the case.



You can separate yourself from Religion and the Bible and still not support Darwin, as you can Support the bible and believe Science.

The problem is your like a kid in a gym when both sides are picking teams. Maybe you don't even want to participate in the game.

Why must you choose? Maybe your just sitting back and evaluating the data.

But as the jury is still out on the final verdict of this debate I still refuse to accept a lie we our all from some random Universe that exploded from Nothing.


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/th_AD_MIT_Einstien.jpg (http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/AD_MIT_Einstien.mp4)

[RD2191]

I might stop by one of these days, never been but sounds like fun. Any females or are you married?:lol

[TE]

gf, imo. stay away from them.

[RD2191]

haha, from the ladies at pan am?:lol

[TE]

kinda, not really. You'd be surprised at the amount of good looking females nowadays there. It's like the females of this half-generation graduated in looks down here.

[xmas1997]

It's not, because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.

Sure some online universities offer a BS in Psychology, from the UT website:

College of Liberal Arts Department of Psychology


BA, major in Psychology (http://www.psych.txstate.edu/)


I'm familiar with science.

Do you base your discussions on philosophy, theology or science? Or do you try to hybrid them together and if so, to what end? Theology discounts all other studies that point away from God as the prime mover.

I would never base anything on theology although I have studied much in the field due to my insatiable curiosity.
I base my theories primarily on physics, but I also know they are tinged to a certain extent by philosophy.
Creativity demands this I think, because I am also a musician so I tend to think outside the box. My studies of various faiths and many of their great books are a hobby.
But I believe there is a mathematical principal behind everything.
So you may be right in describing it as a hybrid. Yet I still tend to put everything to and through scientific methodology.
I grant you that my opinions on spirituality are quite unorthodox.

I don't think we ever stop learning, and that there is no telling where the next inspiration or discovery will come from. In fact, believe it or not the last time I had a light go off inside was right here on this forum a few days ago. Surprising to say the least. :lol

[mouse]

We all know you're a cum laude from MIT.


And what do we know about DMC?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/th_alternative-Design-odds.jpg (http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/alternative-Design-odds.mp4)

[DMC]

I would never base anything on theology although I have studied much in the field due to my insatiable curiosity.
I base my theories primarily on physics, but I also know they are tinged to a certain extent by philosophy.
Creativity demands this I think, because I am also a musician so I tend to think outside the box. My studies of various faiths and many of their great books are a hobby.
But I believe there is a mathematical principal behind everything.
So you may be right in describing it as a hybrid. Yet I still tend to put everything to and through scientific methodology.
I grant you that my opinions on spirituality are quite unorthodox.

I don't see scientific methodology in your responses. I see basically sbm.

[xmas1997]

SBM? That is a new term for me.
Society of Behavior Medicine?

Anyway, that is fine. Science is just another tool to use.

[xmas1997]

xmas1997 you are so screwed!


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/th_Alternative-Design-003.jpg (http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/Alternative-Design-003.mp4)

:lol
As long as she is a she, and was always a she, and foxy as hell too, I'm ok with that.
But then again, I've probably had more than my share of hot horny groupies while gigging in my day.
I'm probably being a bit greedy wanting more.

Why is it something tells me you were not referring to that? :lol

[Woo Bum-kon]

Biased site, let me ask you something, are you a scientist?

How is that relevant? You don't put much stock into what scientists say, going by this thread.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

SBM? That is a new term for me.
Society of Behavior Medicine?

Anyway, that is fine. Science is just another tool to use.

You are so full of shit if you calim you are citing physics. I do see a whole lot of mystic, spiritual faith based nonsense. The sbm comparison accordingly is apt.

[xmas1997]

You are so full of shit if you calim you are citing physics. I do see a whole lot of mystic, spiritual faith based nonsense. The sbm comparison accordingly is apt.
What is the SBM comparison? That a new term?

[silverblk mystix]

What is the SBM comparison? That a new term?

It means "Silver Be' Mean" to me and he is in my head even when I am addressing other posters!



:lmao

[Clipper Nation]

It means "Silver Be' Mean"
No, it means "Sniveling Beta Male"...

[xmas1997]

You are so full of shit if you calim you are citing physics. I do see a whole lot of mystic, spiritual faith based nonsense. The sbm comparison accordingly is apt.

This is how you discuss? You resort to ridicule?
Does it give you some sort of superior feeling?
I never said I was citing physics in this forum, that was your claim.
Does it massage your ego to tell someone you don't even know that they are full of shit?
That is sad. You don't know me. And you barely know what I think, rather just a little I've posted in this forum.
I refuse to get into pissing contests with you, but apparently you had your toes sticking out and I stepped on them. Otherwise why the animosity?
Your insults will only backfire back on you and make you look foolish and childish, sorry.
Good luck with that type of discussing.
It's not for me. I prefer humor, thank you very much. :lol

[galvanizedspur9]

This is how you discuss? You resort to ridicule?
Does it give you some sort of superior feeling?
I never said I was citing physics in this forum, that was your claim.
Does it massage your ego to tell someone you don't even know that they are full of shit?
That is sad. You don't know me. And you barely know what I think, rather just a little I've posted in this forum.
I refuse to get into pissing contests with you, but apparently you had your toes sticking out and I stepped on them. Otherwise why the animosity?
Your insults will only backfire back on you and make you look foolish and childish, sorry.
Good luck with that type of discussing.
It's not for me. I prefer humor, thank you very much. :lol
That's his schtick. To be a pretentious wannabe academic who attempts to sound smart by googling material that's being discussed then chiming several vanilla takes.

Lol then his go to move is claiming logical fallacy at the beginning so watch out for that.

did I forget, he knows fluid mechanics and topology! He's a jack of all trades! :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I never said I was citing physics in this forum, that was your claim.

:cry


I base my theories primarily on physics, but I also know they are tinged to a certain extent by philosophy.

If you feel that way then you shouldn't be here else take your head out of the sand.

It doesn't massage me ego. As I have stated before, I am discouraging what I am ridiculing. It's called negative reinforcement. It works for all of your comments about it backfiring.

I have nothing against you personally. As you said I do not know you. That does not mean that you suddenly do base your theories on physics, make your denial of having said that true, or make your posts be full of less mystical nonsense.

[silverblk mystix]

:lmao fuzzy gettin' shat on

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's his schtick. To be a pretentious wannabe academic who attempts to sound smart by googling material that's being discussed then chiming several vanilla takes.

Lol then his go to move is claiming logical fallacy at the beginning so watch out for that.

did I forget, he knows fluid mechanics and topology! He's a jack of all trades! :lol

:lol You think you can google topology and fluid dynamics and discuss it intelligently. Much less the PDEs, logic, and geometry that are required.

I haven't talked about that for months so I must have made quite the impression on you. Tell us how you really feel.

I don't claim a fallacy is made typically; I point out the fallacy in and of itself without calling it that. My move this time was to claim that he doesn't base his theories on physics. He responded by saying he didn't do that.

[galvanizedspur9]

:lol^^

I am definitely arrogant. I think I have reason to be. I understand multivariable calculus, PDEs, topology, stochastics, and harmonic analysis. Most people have difficulty beyond simple algebra and I have no issues in the highest of mathematics.


Simple logical proofs like application of laws or obvious causality are obvious.


I think the issue that people have is that I treat them with little respect. We have been posting here for a long time. By we I mean the ones that I am going back and forth with. Half of them are about two people that post on multiple accounts. Most of the reason why I give little respect though is because I see a methodology based on bias rather and logic and ideology as opposed to empiricism. And when people are intentionally misleading then I am hostile.


When I see it, I point it out and when people condescend me then I return it right back in kind.


All of that being said, I will admit when I am wrong. For example, elbamba was right and I was wrong as regards to self defense and presumption in the state of FL. There are all kinds of times I have been incorrect. That being said, I am not going to be persuaded by emotional appeal, bluster, or simpleminded bullshit. If that makes me an asshole then so be it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao fuzzy gettin' shat on

I'm sure your support is so meaningful to them....

[RD2191]

That's what they all do, they all retort to name calling. They claim superiority and dismiss you as uniformed. Not 1 link of a transitional fossil or of how humans came to be. Human Origins site still claims that they do not know. Yet all of the atheist here accept evolution as fact when in fact it cannot be proven. I ask once again, has anyone actually observed evolution? Can I provide proof of God? No, I can't. But can anyone provide proof of evolution?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol^^

I am definitely arrogant. I think I have reason to be. I understand multivariable calculus, PDEs, topology, stochastics, and harmonic analysis. Most people have difficulty beyond simple algebra and I have no issues in the highest of mathematics.


Simple logical proofs like application of laws or obvious causality are obvious.


I think the issue that people have is that I treat them with little respect. We have been posting here for a long time. By we I mean the ones that I am going back and forth with. Half of them are about two people that post on multiple accounts. Most of the reason why I give little respect though is because I see a methodology based on bias rather and logic and ideology as opposed to empiricism. And when people are intentionally misleading then I am hostile.


When I see it, I point it out and when people condescend me then I return it right back in kind.


All of that being said, I will admit when I am wrong. For example, elbamba was right and I was wrong as regards to self defense and presumption in the state of FL. There are all kinds of times I have been incorrect. That being said, I am not going to be persuaded by emotional appeal, bluster, or simpleminded bullshit. If that makes me an asshole then so be it.

:lol That really upset you didn't it. I stand by that if that makes you feel better.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's what they all do, they all retort to name calling. They claim superiority and dismiss you as uniformed. Not 1 link of a transitional fossil or of how humans came to be. Human Origins site still claims that they do not know. Yet all of the atheist here accept evolution as fact when in fact it cannot be proven. I ask once again, has anyone actually observed evolution? Can I provide proof of God? No, I can't. But can anyone provide proof of evolution?

All of this has been linked for you. The Smithsonian had all of that. It's like the only thing you will take is a skeleton from every generation dating all the way back to australopithecus.

[RD2191]

They have like 1 fossil of a supposed whale with webbed feet and that's proof?:lol

[galvanizedspur9]

:lol That really upset you didn't it. I stand by that if that makes you feel better.
Actually I got a :lol out of how you front yourself. That quote is all anyone really needs to see how big of a phaggot you are. You don't know jack shit about anything other than how to google stuff. There's nobody else in this forum who is as full of shit as you are. There's a reason why you hate WC of all people. You're the same despicable human being. You must be miserable about yourself lol.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Actually I got a :lol out of how you front yourself. That quote is all anyone really needs to see how big of a phaggot you are. You don't know jack shit about anything other than how to google stuff. There's nobody else in this forum who is as full of shit as you are. There's a reason why you hate WC of all people. You're the same despicable human being. You must be miserable about yourself lol.

If characterizing me like that makes you feel better then so be it. All that is coming across to me from you is a remarkable inferiority complex.

[galvanizedspur9]

If characterizing me like that makes you feel better then so be it. All that is coming across to me from you is a remarkable inferiority complex.
Nothing screams inferiority complex like typing up the response you did not to mention your frequent going around ridiculing people's intellect. For as smart as you claim to be, you walked right into this. :lol

[xmas1997]

That's his schtick. To be a pretentious wannabe academic who attempts to sound smart by googling material that's being discussed then chiming several vanilla takes.

Lol then his go to move is claiming logical fallacy at the beginning so watch out for that.

did I forget, he knows fluid mechanics and topology! He's a jack of all trades! :lol

:lol. You don't know me either. Were your toes sticking out too?
You also with the pretentious claims.
What, is this how you discuss opinions?
You are aware of the difference between opinions and facts, right?
Geeez, there sure are a lot of over defensive posters here tonight.
What's up with that? :lol




If you feel that way then you shouldn't be here else take your head out of the sand.

It doesn't massage me ego. As I have stated before, I am discouraging what I am ridiculing. It's called negative reinforcement. It works for all of your comments about it backfiring.

I have nothing against you personally. As you said I do not know you. That does not mean that you suddenly do base your theories on physics, make your denial of having said that true, or make your posts be full of less mystical nonsense.

Again with the ridicule, and this time with baseless accusations mixed in? :lol
How do you get anything accomplished if all you can resort to are insults and ridiculous accusations?
Do you even realize how foolish you are making yourself look? Do you even care? :lol
All you have discouraged is others taking you seriously. I hope you at least realize that, because it doesn't take rocket science or a degree in physics to see that.

The man asked for what my background was, yet somehow you misinterpreted my answer to be a huge put down of you? Otherwise why the insulting remarks? I can't help that, it isn't my problem if that bothers you, it is yours. It is what it is.
You are free to label all you like, but it won't change anything with me.
Bash away if that tickles your fancy.
I find it mildly amusing, and just a bit childish.
If you could have added a little humor you might have made it more palatable.
Good luck with all that!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Nothing screams inferiority complex like typing up the response you did not to mention your frequent going around ridiculing people's intellect. For as smart as you claim to be, you walked right into this. :lol

What I walked into?

If you say so. What is obvious is that I am in your head. You came out of nowhere asshurt like no tomorrow in an effort to call me out. Either that or you are on a troll. You can never tell around here. Either way, it's not as if you are revealing something.

There is this though. About half of the population is below average intelligence. There are stupid people out there. Now I do not just call people stupid. I say so in a reaction to stupid things they say or exhibit. I point out specific examples of why I feel that. There are objective measurements of intelligence. Memory, logic, critical thinking, understanding of complex ideas, etc. That is what I point to.

That you take such issue with that does reveal something about you whether you like it or not. As I said, it screams inferiority complex.

[RD2191]

was galvanized even referring to you xmas?

[silverblk mystix]

fuzzy still getting shat on :lmao


He is tap dancing like ten motherfuckers on speed tryin' to weasel out of it!!!!

[silverblk mystix]

was galvanized even referring to you xmas?

Nope - he was shitting on fuzzy faggot

[RD2191]

What I walked into?

If you say so. What is obvious is that I am in your head. You came out of nowhere asshurt like no tomorrow in an effort to call me out. Either that or you are on a troll. You can never tell around here. Either way, it's not as if you are revealing something.

There is this though. About half of the population is below average intelligence. There are stupid people out there. Now I do not just call people stupid. I say so in a reaction to stupid things they say or exhibit. I point out specific examples of why I feel that. There are objective measurements of intelligence. Memory, logic, critical thinking, understanding of complex ideas, etc. That is what I point to.

That you take such issue with that does reveal something about you whether you like it or not. As I said, it screams inferiority complex.
:cry:cry

[RD2191]

:lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So we have rob with smilies and sbm with the pompoms.

Fuzzy: 10
Butthurts: 0

And I am being nice because that shit from galv was just sad.

[galvanizedspur9]

What I walked into?

If you say so. What is obvious is that I am in your head. You came out of nowhere asshurt like no tomorrow in an effort to call me out. Either that or you are on a troll. You can never tell around here. Either way, it's not as if you are revealing something.

There is this though. About half of the population is below average intelligence. There are stupid people out there. Now I do not just call people stupid. I say so in a reaction to stupid things they say or exhibit. I point out specific examples of why I feel that. There are objective measurements of intelligence. Memory, logic, critical thinking, understanding of complex ideas, etc. That is what I point to.

That you take such issue with that does reveal something about you whether you like it or not. As I said, it screams inferiority complex.
It seems like I'm in your head and it didn't take much. Else you wouldn't have engaged in a back and forth with what you call a troll.

It's so obvious I bother you. That you take issue to a troll telling another poster of your tired played out schtick is telling.

[galvanizedspur9]

Here's where he claims victory :lmao predictable

[RD2191]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=937ldGP33nY

[RD2191]

Kony
Leeto
Fuzzy
Clippernation

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Here's where he claims victory :lmao predictable

It's certainly getting the response I am hoping for. That and the "I know you are but what am I" thing is just hilarious.

Dance, monkey, dance.

http://www.netanimations.net/Moving-animated-picture-of-dancing-green-monkey.gif

[galvanizedspur9]

It's certainly getting the response I am hoping for. That and the "I know you are but what am I" thing is just hilarious.

Dance, monkey, dance.

http://www.netanimations.net/Moving-animated-picture-of-dancing-green-monkey.gif
You're such a disappointment. Now I believe you're full of shit but I expected more from someone who attempts to speak from such a higher ground. You really suck at this and I didn't even try, tbh.

[xmas1997]

Nope - he was shitting on fuzzy faggot

Yeah, and it's a shame too because fuzzy has had some great takes, yet he wastes time by getting in pissing contests with you, SBM. In fact you both have a lot of wisdom and even more humor to impart if you both would refrain from the insults IMHO.
Now this dude' galvan, I've no idea whatsoever why he is sticking his nose in here because so far ALL he has done is ridicule and not given one iota of positive information at all, opinion or fact.
Is his sole intent to disrupt? Or do any of you think he is deluding himself of a higher motive.
Honestly, I can't tell, but if you read his posts, they smack of contentiousness and nothing concrete of a positive nature, at least so far.
Maybe he will wake up and realize how he is making himself look.
We shall see, but I have my doubts.
He could use a stiff dosage of humor too, by the way! :lol

[RD2191]

It's certainly getting the response I am hoping for. That and the "I know you are but what am I" thing is just hilarious.

Dance, monkey, dance.

http://www.netanimations.net/Moving-animated-picture-of-dancing-green-monkey.gif
The definition of coward.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're such a disappointment. Now I believe you're full of shit but I expected more from someone who attempts to speak from such a higher ground. You really suck at this and I didn't even try, tbh.

Keep flailing with the characterizations. I am very moved by them. I care because you do, windowlicker.

http://www.netanimations.net/Moving-animated-picture-of-happy-dancing-monkey.gif

[RD2191]

Fuzzy now believes that he has control over you, by pulling out the monkey, he has set up a debate to which only he believes he can win. If you keep replying to Fuzzy he will simply state that you are his puppet and are doing as he says. Which in my opinion is the definition of coward.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah, and it's a shame too because fuzzy has had some great takes, yet he wastes time by getting in pissing contests with you, SBM. In fact you both have a lot of wisdom and even more humor to impart if you both would refrain from the insults IMHO.
Now this dude' galvan, I've no idea whatsoever why he is sticking his nose in here because so far ALL he has done is ridicule and not given one iota of positive information at all, opinion or fact.
Is his sole intent to disrupt? Or do any of you think he is deluding himself of a higher motive.
Honestly, I can't tell, but if you read his posts, they smack of contentiousness and nothing concrete of a positive nature, at least so far.
Maybe he will wake up and realize how he is making himself look.
We shall see, but I have my doubts.
He could use a stiff dosage of humor too, by the way! :lol

Oh so now you don't like monkeys? There is just no pleasing you guys.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy now believes that he has control over you, by pulling out the monkey, he has set up a debate to which only he believes he can win. If you keep replying to Fuzzy he will simply state that you are his puppet and are doing as he says. Which in my opinion is the definition of coward.

Well I post monkeys and I get the same type of butthurt shit out of you guys every time. Well that and xmass' moralism. Over and over again. You can try and say it's any different but you know it's true. Live in the world as it is and not how you want it to be.

ZzPaL2X7diw

[galvanizedspur9]

Fuzzy now believes that he has control over you, by pulling out the monkey, he has set up a debate to which only he believes he can win. If you keep replying to Fuzzy he will simply state that you are his puppet and are doing as he says. Which in my opinion is the definition of coward.
I've reduced him to posting pics of monkeys, ironic how that somehow ties into the original topic of the thread.

Just way too easy.

[xmas1997]

Well I post monkeys and I get the same type of butthurt shit out of you guys every time. Well that and xmass' moralism. Over and over again. You can try and say it's any different but you know it's true. Live in the world as it is and not how you want it to be.

ZzPaL2X7diw

Fuzzy, I am not trying to post moralisms, swear to God I am not.
And if I am, that is not my intention.
I just want more of that wisdom you imparted before is all, sans the insults.
I do not ask you to agree with me either, rather just agree to be allowed to disagree in a civil and humorous manner.
Is that too much to ask of you?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I've reduced him to posting pics of monkeys, ironic how that somehow ties into the original topic of the thread.

Just way too easy.

It is. You should try something else than the peewee routine.

Cs4Gj7JsET4

I am waiting for one of you to say something clever and lighten things up. You guys seem upset.

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100413111704/uncyclopedia/images/e/e6/Dance_monkey_dance.gif

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy, I am not trying to post moralisms, swear to God I am not.
And if I am, that is not my intention.
I just want more of that wisdom you imparted before is all, sans the insults.
I do not ask you to agree with me either, rather just agree to be allowed to disagree in a civil and humorous manner.
Is that too much to ask of you?

Apparently if you do not find monkeys amusing.

[RD2191]

Thinks he is winning when in reality is clearly having a meltdown.:lol

[xmas1997]

It is. You should try something else than the peewee routine.

Cs4Gj7JsET4

I am waiting for one of you to say something clever and lighten things up. You guys seem upset.

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100413111704/uncyclopedia/images/e/e6/Dance_monkey_dance.gif


I am not upset, fuzzy.
It would be great to have some cleverness, I agree.
Obviously somebody in this thread, other than you and I, has mistaken us for someone who gives a shit. :lol
Can we agree on that? And we both have a good idea who that is.
I know you're going to say that maybe I am moralizing, but take the high road anyway.
And the monkeys are crazy funny! :lmao

[galvanizedspur9]

It is. You should try something else than the peewee routine.

Cs4Gj7JsET4

I am waiting for one of you to say something clever and lighten things up. You guys seem upset.

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100413111704/uncyclopedia/images/e/e6/Dance_monkey_dance.gif
Why are you still quoting me? I messed you up pretty badly, now look at you still struggling to get back up on your feet. Stop melting down. Someone call 911. This man needs help ASAP.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why are you still quoting me? I messed you up pretty badly, now look at you still struggling to get back up on your feet. Stop melting down. Someone call 911. This man needs help ASAP.

That's a good question..... Why am I?

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/152710/dancing-monkey-2-o.gif

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am not upset, fuzzy.
It would be great to have some cleverness, I agree.
Obviously somebody in this thread, other than you and I, has mistaken us for someone who gives a shit. :lol
Can we agree on that? And we both have a good idea who that is.
I know you're going to say that maybe I am moralizing, but take the high road anyway.
And the monkeys are crazy funny! :lmao

You don't seem upset but you do seem to have much higher expectations of behavior around this place then you will ever get. Thus I take the monkey road.

[Clipper Nation]

Kony
Leeto
Fuzzy
Clippernation
:lol Listing people who are totally in your head

[Clipper Nation]

Thinks he is winning when in reality is clearly having a meltdown.:lol
:lol Narrating your own posts from the past week in third person

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Thinks he is winning when in reality is clearly having a meltdown.:lol

There are no winners and losers in a MONKEY MELTDOWN!!!

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/14041/irish-dancing-monkeys-o.gif

[RD2191]

:sleep

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:sleep


It's funny how people use stoicism as cowardice.

http://i.imgur.com/AUm9Auh.gif

[RD2191]

:sleep

[xmas1997]

The monkey road is pretty damn funny! Even I have to admit that. :lol
At least you know I am doing my best to stay out of the pissing contests and resist the baiting that is pretty obvious to me now.
But this tactic will gain them absolutely nothing except being ignored.
We both know who I am referring to, right?
Unfortunately he did succeed in sidetracking the discussion, which I suspect was his true motivation all along.
Oh well, it is what it is, or rather, it was what it was! :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:sleep

I bet you don't even understand what I mean in that quote. And yes I know it's not a monkey!

http://i.imgur.com/mg1QX.gif

[RD2191]

:sleep:monkey

[xmas1997]

If you were asking me, then you are correct, I have no idea.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you were asking me, then you are correct, I have no idea.

nah i wasn't talking to you but i will explain. in today's age --and I believe it's in large part because of how trolling is done-- people hide behind stoicism. anger is seen as weakness. passion is a bother to be mocked. I think all of that is based on fear. I prefer Rousseau


Our passions are the chief means of self-preservation; to try to destroy them is therefore as absurd as it is useless;

[Leetonidas]

:lol Listing people who are totally in your head

Dude really needs to get off my dick tbh little cumstain follows me into other threads as well as continuously bringing up me and others who haven't even bothered to acknowledge him :lol

He's made around 500 posts since Friday :wow neckbeard must be incredibly obese to the point of unable to move thus resulting in endless amounts of time to post on ST from sunrise to sunset

[xmas1997]

nah i wasn't talking to you but i will explain. in today's age --and I believe it's in large part because of how trolling is done-- people hide behind stoicism. anger is seen as weakness. passion is a bother to be mocked. I think all of that is based on fear. I prefer Rousseau

I get it, and I agree 100%.
You are right about the fear issue.
I've also been saying that a lot on here resort to ridicule when they have no confidence in their own opinion or argument.
I am beginning to suspect though that some on here just want to bait others into getting upset so they have an excuse to put them down.
The truth is it always backfires on those type of posters, and results in them looking like total losers with nothing constructive to add to the discussion.
They compensate for their ignorance by lashing out in hopes of sidetracking the decent posters and when they succeed it gives them a cheap thrill, although very temporary because when the competent posters return to their points, the ignorant one is usually just ignored.
That is my theory for what it's worth.

[exstatic]

The Riverdance chimps were way too funny.

[RandomGuy]

I do not know and you don't either, you are simply doing what I am doing. You are gathering your so called knowledge and information from books or the internet. Have you done any studies on the second law of thermodynamics? I highly doubt that you have. So then how do you know that you are right and that I am wrong? You don't. I have links and sources that claim the theory of evolution does violate the second law, you have sources that claim otherwise, so who is right?


The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics


The claims of creationists go like this:

"Evolution is order from chaos (entropy), therefore it violates the second law of thermodynamics, because disordered things (organic molecules) became more ordered. (long chain RNA, etc)"


The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18



"In the natural sciences an isolated system is a physical system without any external exchange – neither matter nor energy can enter or exit, but can only move around inside."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system

Now ask yourself:

"Is the Earth an isolated system?"

"Is the inside of a plankton cell living in the ocean an isolated system?"

Why or why not?


See, this is not difficult at all, and you don't have to take anybody's word for it. You can read on the subject yourself, as I have done.


[copy and pasted response from some website]

Did I ask a difficult question or two here?

You are ignoring them.

Is the earth a closed system?

"Is the inside of a plankton cell living in the ocean an isolated system?"

[RandomGuy]

They have like 1 fossil of a supposed whale with webbed feet and that's proof?:lol

They have far more than one.

If you really had researched that, you would know that already.


Transition from amphibians to amniotes (first reptiles)
The major functional difference between the ancient, large amphibians and the first little reptiles is the amniotic egg. Additional differences include stronger legs and girdles, different vertebrae, and stronger jaw muscles. For more info, see Carroll (1988) and Gauthier et al. (in Benton, 1988)

•Proterogyrinus or another early anthracosaur (late Mississippian) -- Classic labyrinthodont-amphibian skull and teeth, but with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits. Still has fish skull hinge. Amphibian ankle. 5-toed hand and a 2-3-4-5-3 (almost reptilian) phalangeal count.
•Limnoscelis, Tseajaia (late Carboniferous) -- Amphibians apparently derived from the early anthracosaurs, but with additional reptilian features: structure of braincase, reptilian jaw muscle, expanded neural arches.
•Solenodonsaurus (mid-Pennsylvanian) -- An incomplete fossil, apparently between the anthracosaurs and the cotylosaurs. Loss of palatal fangs, loss of lateral line on head, etc. Still just a single sacral vertebra, though.
•Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian) -- These are protorothyrids, very early cotylosaurs (primitive reptiles). They were quite little, lizard-sized animals with amphibian-like skulls (amphibian pineal opening, dermal bone, etc.), shoulder, pelvis, & limbs, and intermediate teeth and vertebrae. Rest of skeleton reptilian, with reptilian jaw muscle, no palatal fangs, and spool-shaped vertebral centra. Probably no eardrum yet. Many of these new "reptilian" features are also seen in little amphibians (which also sometimes have direct-developing eggs laid on land), so perhaps these features just came along with the small body size of the first reptiles.
The ancestral amphibians had a rather weak skull and paired "aortas" (systemic arches). The first reptiles immediately split into two major lines which modified these traits in different ways. One line developed an aorta on the right side and strengthened the skull by swinging the quadrate bone down and forward, resulting in an enormous otic notch (and allowed the later development of good hearing without much further modification). This group further split into three major groups, easily recognizable by the number of holes or "fenestrae" in the side of the skull: the anapsids (no fenestrae), which produced the turtles; the diapsids (two fenestrae), which produced the dinosaurs and birds; and an offshoot group, the eurapsids (two fenestrae fused into one), which produced the ichthyosaurs.

The other major line of reptiles developed an aorta on left side only, and strengthened the skull by moving the quadrate bone up and back, obliterating the otic notch (making involvement of the jaw essential in the later development of good hearing). They developed a single fenestra per side. This group was the synapsid reptiles. They took a radically different path than the other reptiles, involving homeothermy, a larger brain, better hearing and more efficient teeth. One group of synapsids called the "therapsids" took these changes particularly far, and apparently produced the mammals.

Some transitions among reptiles
I will review just a couple of the reptile phylogenies, since there are so many.... Early reptiles to turtles: (Also see Gaffney & Meylan, in Benton 1988)

•Captorhinus (early-mid Permain) -- Immediate descendent of the protorothryids.
Here we come to a controversy; there are two related groups of early anapsids, both descended from the captorhinids, that could have been ancestral to turtles. Reisz & Laurin (1991, 1993) believe the turtles descended from procolophonids, late Permian anapsids that had various turtle-like skull features. Others, particularly Lee (1993) think the turtle ancestors are pareiasaurs:

•Scutosaurus and other pareiasaurs (mid-Permian) -- Large bulky herbivorous reptiles with turtle-like skull features. Several genera had bony plates in the skin, possibly the first signs of a turtle shell.
•Deltavjatia vjatkensis (Permian) -- A recently discovered pareiasaur with numerous turtle-like skull features (e.g., a very high palate), limbs, and girdles, and lateral projections flaring out some of the vertebrae in a very shell-like way. (Lee, 1993)
•Proganochelys (late Triassic) -- a primitive turtle, with a fully turtle-like skull, beak, and shell, but with some primitive traits such as rows of little palatal teeth, a still-recognizable clavicle, a simple captorhinid-type jaw musculature, a primitive captorhinid- type ear, a non-retractable neck, etc..
•Recently discovered turtles from the early Jurassic, not yet described.
Mid-Jurassic turtles had already divided into the two main groups of modern turtles, the side-necked turtles and the arch-necked turtles. Obviously these two groups developed neck retraction separately, and came up with totally different solutions. In fact the first known arch-necked turtles, from the Late Jurassic, could not retract their necks, and only later did their descendents develop the archable neck. Early reptiles to diapsids: (see Evans, in Benton 1988, for more info)

•Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Penn.) -- The primitive amniotes described above
•Petrolacosaurus, Araeoscelis (late Pennsylvanian) -- First known diapsids. Both temporal fenestra now present. No significant change in jaw muscles. Have Hylonomus-style teeth, with many small marginal teeth & two slightly larger canines. Still no eardrum.
•Apsisaurus (early Permian) -- A more typical diapsid. Lost canines. (Laurin, 1991)
GAP: no diapsid fossils from the mid-Permian.

•Claudiosaurus (late Permian) -- An early diapsid with several neodiapsid traits, but still had primitive cervical vertebrae & unossified sternum. probably close to the ancestry of all diapsides (the lizards & snakes & crocs & birds).
•Planocephalosaurus(early Triassic) -- Further along the line that produced the lizards and snakes. Loss of some skull bones, teeth, toe bones.
•Protorosaurus, Prolacerta (early Triassic) -- Possibly among the very first archosaurs, the line that produced dinos, crocs, and birds. May be "cousins" to the archosaurs, though.
•Proterosuchus (early Triassic) -- First known archosaur.
•Hyperodapedon, Trilophosaurus (late Triassic) -- Early archosaurs.
Some species-to-species transitions:

•De Ricqles (in Chaline, 1983) documents several possible cases of gradual evolution (also well as some lineages that showed abrupt appearance or stasis) among the early Permian reptile genera Captorhinus, Protocaptorhinus, Eocaptorhinus, and Romeria.
•Horner et al. (1992) recently found many excellent transitional dinosaur fossils from a site in Montana that was a coastal plain in the late Cretaceous. They include:
1.Many transitional ceratopsids between Styracosaurus and Pachyrhinosaurus
2.Many transitional lambeosaurids (50! specimens) between Lambeosaurus and Hypacrosaurus.
3.A transitional pachycephalosaurid between Stegoceras and Pachycephalosaurus
4.A transitional tyrannosaurid between Tyrannosaurus and Daspletosaurus.
All of these transitional animals lived during the same brief 500,000 years. Before this site was studied, these dinosaur groups were known from the much larger Judith River Formation, where the fossils showed 5 million years of evolutionary stasis, following by the apparently abrupt appearance of the new forms. It turns out that the sea level rose during that 500,000 years, temporarily burying the Judith River Formation under water, and forcing the dinosaur populations into smaller areas such as the site in Montana. While the populations were isolated in this smaller area, they underwent rapid evolution. When sea level fell again, the new forms spread out to the re-exposed Judith River landscape, thus appearing "suddenly" in the Judith River fossils, with the transitional fossils only existing in the Montana site. This is an excellent example of punctuated equilibrium (yes, 500,000 years is very brief and counts as a "punctuation"), and is a good example of why transitional fossils may only exist in a small area, with the new species appearing "suddenly" in other areas. (Horner et al., 1992) Also note the discovery of Ianthosaurus, a genus that links the two synapsid families Ophiacodontidae and Edaphosauridae. (see Carroll, 1988, p. 367)

Transition from synapsid reptiles to mammals
This is the best-documented transition between vertebrate classes. So far this series is known only as a series of genera or families; the transitions from species to species are not known. But the family sequence is quite complete. Each group is clearly related to both the group that came before, and the group that came after, and yet the sequence is so long that the fossils at the end are astoundingly different from those at the beginning. As Rowe recently said about this transition (in Szalay et al., 1993), "When sampling artifact is removed and all available character data analyzed [with computer phylogeny programs that do not assume anything about evolution], a highly corroborated, stable phylogeny remains, which is largely consistent with the temporal distributions of taxa recorded in the fossil record." Similarly, Gingerich has stated (1977) "While living mammals are well separated from other groups of animals today, the fossil record clearly shows their origin from a reptilian stock and permits one to trace the origin and radiation of mammals in considerable detail." For more details, see Kermack's superb and readable little book (1984), Kemp's more detailed but older book (1982), and read Szalay et al.'s recent collection of review articles (1993, vol. 1).

This list starts with pelycosaurs (early synapsid reptiles) and continues with therapsids and cynodonts up to the first unarguable "mammal". Most of the changes in this transition involved elaborate repackaging of an expanded brain and special sense organs, remodeling of the jaws & teeth for more efficient eating, and changes in the limbs & vertebrae related to active, legs-under-the-body locomotion. Here are some differences to keep an eye on:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# Early Reptiles Mammals


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 No fenestrae in skull Massive fenestra exposes all of braincase

2 Braincase attached loosely Braincase attached firmly to skull

3 No secondary palate Complete bony secondary palate

4 Undifferentiated dentition Incisors, canines, premolars, molars

5 Cheek teeth uncrowned points Cheek teeth (PM & M) crowned & cusped

6 Teeth replaced continuously Teeth replaced once at most

7 Teeth with single root Molars double-rooted

8 Jaw joint quadrate-articular Jaw joint dentary-squamosal (*)

9 Lower jaw of several bones Lower jaw of dentary bone only

10 Single ear bone (stapes) Three ear bones (stapes, incus, malleus)

11 Joined external nares Separate external nares

12 Single occipital condyle Double occipital condyle

13 Long cervical ribs Cervical ribs tiny, fused to vertebrae

14 Lumbar region with ribs Lumbar region rib-free

15 No diaphragm Diaphragm

16 Limbs sprawled out from body Limbs under body

17 Scapula simple Scapula with big spine for muscles

18 Pelvic bones unfused Pelvis fused

19 Two sacral (hip) vertebrae Three or more sacral vertebrae

20 Toe bone #'s 2-3-4-5-4 Toe bones 2-3-3-3-3

21 Body temperature variable Body temperature constant


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[edited for length--RG]
Transition from diapsid reptiles to birds
In the mid-1800's, this was one of the most significant gaps in vertebrate fossil evolution. No transitional fossils at all were known, and the two groups seemed impossibly different. Then the exciting discovery of Archeopteryx in 1861 showed clearly that the two groups were in fact related. Since then, some other reptile-bird links have been found. On the whole, though, this is still a gappy transition, consisting of a very large-scale series of "cousin" fossils. I have not included Mononychus (as it appears to be a digger, not a flier, well off the line to modern birds). See Feduccia (1980) and Rayner (1989) for more discussion of the evolution of flight, and Chris Nedin's excellent Archeopteryx FAQ for more info on that critter.

•Coelophysis (late Triassic) -- One of the first theropod dinosaurs. Theropods in general show clear general skeletal affinities with birds (long limbs, hollow bones, foot with 3 toes in front and 1 reversed toe behind, long ilium). Jurassic theropods like Compsognathus are particularly similar to birds.
•Deinonychus, Oviraptor, and other advanced theropods (late Jurassic, Cretaceous) -- Predatory bipedal advanced theropods, larger, with more bird-like skeletal features: semilunate carpal, bony sternum, long arms, reversed pubis. Clearly runners, though, not fliers. These advanced theropods even had clavicles, sometimes fused as in birds. Says Clark (1992): "The detailed similarity between birds and theropod dinosaurs such as Deinonychus is so striking and so pervasive throughout the skeleton that a considerable amount of special pleading is needed to come to any conclusion other than that the sister-group of birds among fossils is one of several theropod dinosaurs." The particular fossils listed here are are not directly ancestral, though, as they occur after Archeopteryx.
•Lisboasaurus estesi & other "troodontid dinosaur-birds" (mid-Jurassic) -- A bird-like theropod reptile with very bird-like teeth (that is, teeth very like those of early toothed birds, since modern birds have no teeth). These really could be ancestral.
GAP: The exact reptilian ancestor of Archeopteryx, and the first development of feathers, are unknown. Early bird evolution seems to have involved little forest climbers and then little forest fliers, both of which are guaranteed to leave very bad fossil records (little animal + acidic forest soil = no remains). Archeopteryx itself is really about the best we could ask for: several specimens has superb feather impressions, it is clearly related to both reptiles and birds, and it clearly shows that the transition is feasible.

•One possible ancestor of Archeopteryx is Protoavis (Triassic, ~225 Ma) -- A highly controversial fossil that may or may not be an extremely early bird. Unfortunately, not enough of the fossil was recovered to determine if it is definitely related to the birds.
•Archeopteryx lithographica (Late Jurassic, 150 Ma) -- The several known specimes of this deservedly famous fossil show a mosaic of reptilian and avian features, with the reptilian features predominating. The skull and skeleton are basically reptilian (skull, teeth, vertebrae, sternum, ribs, pelvis, tail, digits, claws, generally unfused bones). Bird traits are limited to an avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight muscles; recall that at least some dinosaurs had this too), modified forelimbs, and -- the real kicker -- unmistakable lift-producing flight feathers. Archeopteryx could probably flap from tree to tree, but couldn't take off from the ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone for large flight muscles, and had a weak shoulder compared to modern birds. May not have been the direct ancestor of modern birds. (Wellnhofer, 1993)
•Sinornis santensis ("Chinese bird", early Cretaceous, 138 Ma) -- A recently found little primitive bird. Bird traits: short trunk, claws on the toes, flight-specialized shoulders, stronger flight- feather bones, tightly folding wrist, short hand. (These traits make it a much better flier than Archeopteryx.) Reptilian traits: teeth, stomach ribs, unfused hand bones, reptilian-shaped unfused pelvis. (These remaining reptilian traits wouldn't have interfered with flight.) Intermediate traits: metatarsals partially fused, medium-sized sternal keel, medium-length tail (8 vertebrae) with fused pygostyle at the tip. (Sereno & Rao, 1992).
•"Las Hoyas bird" or "Spanish bird" [not yet named; early Cretaceous, 131 Ma) -- Another recently found "little forest flier". It still has reptilian pelvis & legs, with bird-like shoulder. Tail is medium-length with a fused tip. A fossil down feather was found with the Las Hoyas bird, indicating homeothermy. (Sanz et al., 1992)
•Ambiortus dementjevi (early Cretaceous, 125 Ma) -- The third known "little forest flier", found in 1985. Very fragmentary fossil.
•Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, and other Cretaceous diving birds -- This line of birds became specialized for diving, like modern cormorants. As they lived along saltwater coasts, there are many fossils known. Skeleton further modified for flight (fusion of pelvis bones, fusion of hand bones, short & fused tail). Still had true socketed teeth, a reptilian trait.
[Note: a classic study of chicken embryos showed that chicken bills can be induced to develop teeth, indicating that chickens (and perhaps other modern birds) still retain the genes for making teeth. Also note that molecular data shows that crocodiles are birds' closest living relatives.]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
IF you prefer da yootoobz:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfTbrHg8KGQ

[RandomGuy]

I would point out that each one of those years in paranethesis denots a scientifically reviewed paper.

Yes, there are transitional forms, and mountains of physical evidence supporting that.

[xmas1997]

I would point out that each one of those years in paranethesis denots a scientifically reviewed paper.

Yes, there are transitional forms, and mountains of physical evidence supporting that.

All of that should have put this discussion to bed IMHO.

[RD2191]

:lol
Fish=fish
lizard=lizard
Where are the ones that turned into humans?

[RD2191]

Oh and scientist can't lie? Has he done any actual studies himself? No, he hasn't. In other words he has faith in what they are saying is true.

[RD2191]

In before "you're stupid and that's not how evolution works". I'm pretty sure something had to come before the first ape/chimp, so what was it?

[xmas1997]

I would love to have wings.

[RD2191]

both of which are guaranteed to leave very bad fossil records (little animal + acidic forest soil = no remains):lol

seems convenient

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In before "you're stupid and that's not how evolution works". I'm pretty sure something had to come before the first ape/chimp, so what was it?

You can try and poison the well but it is what it is. You are trying to claim that 'we' are trying to claim lizards turned into humans. We have gone over the ideas of common ancestor, genetic mutations, genetic drift, isolated populations and all manner of things. Now grasping of complex ideas is a standard of mine. As such your 'in b4' comment is apt.

It's to the point now where one of two things are happening. Either:

a) you are bored and just trolling
b) you are incapable of understanding the concepts that are required to understand the answer.

[xmas1997]

I would still love to have wings though. :lol

[RD2191]

You can try and poison the well but it is what it is. You are trying to claim that 'we' are trying to claim lizards turned into humans. We have gone over the ideas of common ancestor, genetic mutations, genetic drift, isolated populations and all manner of things. Now grasping of complex ideas is a standard of mine. As such your 'in b4' comment is apt.

It's to the point now where one of two things are happening. Either:

a) you are bored and just trolling
b) you are incapable of understanding the concepts that are required to understand the answer.
so then what turned into humans? i mean before our common ancestors?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

so then what turned into humans? i mean before our common ancestors?

After all this, if that is still your question you are a lost cause. I told you before I do not have the inclination to tutor you and you do not seem to have the capacity to teach yourself. It's a difficult skill to be intellectually self reliant, so you are not alone.

If you want to try I would advise looking into what a common ancestor is. It's obvious by your question you have not mastered the concept.

[xmas1997]

I believe an egg turned into a chicken, the other ones I had for breakfast this morning, over easy. :lol

[RD2191]

ok so the lizard turned into a chimp overnight?:lol

[ChumpDumper]

X-Men!

[xmas1997]

ok so the lizard turned into a chimp overnight?:lol

Better watch out, fuzzy will post his funny monkeys again, and nobody wins when the monkeys come out. :lol

[RD2191]

:monkey

[RD2191]

:lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Better watch out, fuzzy will post his funny monkeys again, and nobody wins when the monkeys come out. :lol

Nah, the monkeys only come out when people get asshurt because I "talk smart" or "think I'm smart" or the like. The only way to 'argue' that is to argue for the side of intelligence and when someone chooses the counter for that it's worth nothing more than a MONKEY MELTDOWN!

[RD2191]

Okay professor. What came before the first ape?

[Koolaid_Man]

Okay professor. What came before the first ape?

Did anyone attempt to answer the question on why monkey's are still here if we "evolved" from them :lol

[RD2191]

Not sure, was too busy talking shit tbh. But I don't think they did. Some bullshit about how we didn't compete with them.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Okay professor. What came before the first ape?

define 'the first ape.'

[RD2191]

the very first primate I guess you could say

[RD2191]

better yet the very first fukin animal that resembled a human:lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Did anyone attempt to answer the question on why monkey's are still here if we "evolved" from them :lol

You are the king of stupid assumptions lately, mang. The assumption here is that evolved means the extinction of the forebear. Similar to the more asinine assumption that evolution means whatever traits you whim up.

From your approach, it's obvious you don't believe the shit you are saying so I am curious as to what you really do think.

[xmas1997]

Nah, the monkeys only come out when people get asshurt because I "talk smart" or "think I'm smart" or the like. The only way to 'argue' that is to argue for the side of intelligence and when someone chooses the counter for that it's worth nothing more than a MONKEY MELTDOWN!

:lmao
The monkeys are great!

[ChumpDumper]

Did anyone attempt to answer the question on why monkey's are still here if we "evolved" from them :lolWho says we evolved from them?

You guys seriously don't know the first thing about the theory of evolution.

[Koolaid_Man]

You are the king of stupid assumptions lately, mang. The assumption here is that evolved means the extinction of the forebear. Similar to the more asinine assumption that evolution means whatever traits you whim up.

From your approach, it's obvious you don't believe the shit you are saying so I am curious as to what you really do think.

ok..then let's play chess...where are the cavemen and other peoples that are half ape half human...since the forebear isn't extinct what about the forebear's along the way...where are these specimens living? all we got are monkey and humans what about the people in between the half monkey's and half human's where are they? WHERE ARE THEY!!!! :lol

[ChumpDumper]

ok..then let's play chess...where are the cavemen and other peoples that are half ape half human...since the forebear isn't extinct what about the

forebear's along the way...where are these specimens living? all we got are monkey and humans what about the people in between the half monkey's and half human's where are they? WHERE ARE THEY!!!! :lolNow your assumption is that everything has to still exist.

You're terrible at this.

[Koolaid_Man]

Now your assumption is that everything has to still exist.

You're terrible at this.

I'm actually quite good at this...of it doesn't exist from whence does it come?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm actually quite good at this...of it doesn't exist from whence does it come?Now you are confused about the concept of time.

Wow.

[Koolaid_Man]

Now you are confused about the concept of time.

Wow.

spinning and pivoting like a pulsar

[Koolaid_Man]

where are the half monkey's / half humans if we evolved....why are there only monkey's or humans :lol answer that question and I'll renounce my religion

[ChumpDumper]

spinning and pivoting like a pulsarYes, you are.

Are you just playing stupid or is this how you really are?

[Koolaid_Man]

Yes, you are.

Are you just playing stupid or is this how you really are?

answer my question

[Koolaid_Man]

where are the half monkey's / half humans if we evolved

[ChumpDumper]

where are the half monkey's / half humans if we evolved....why are there only monkey's or humans :lol answer that question and I'll renounce my religionWhere is God?

Have him call my cell phone and I will join whatever religion you follow.

[ChumpDumper]

where are the half monkey's / half humans if we evolvedWho says we evolved from monkeys?

You never answered that question.

[Koolaid_Man]

Where is God?

Have him call my cell phone and I will join whatever religion you follow.

you're not answering me..you're pivoting...again

where are the half monkey's / half humans if we evolved

[ChumpDumper]

you're not answering me..you're pivoting...again

Where are the half monkey's / half humans if we evolvedNo, I exposed a fundamental ignorance on your part since your question is based on a false premise.

Who says we evolved from monkeys?

Answer the question.

[Koolaid_Man]

Who says we evolved from monkeys?

You never answered that question.

so if not monkey's (as theorized by evolutionists) then what did we evolve from? we couldn't have evolved from plastic right....there has to be some commonality in evolution right? what mammal did we come from? the question will repeat.. it might be best if just answer: " I don't fucking know Kool, this puts a dent in my silly ass evolution beliefs."

[ChumpDumper]

so if not monkey's (as theorized by evolutionists)Which evolutionists theorized that we evolved from monkeys?

Name some names.

[Koolaid_Man]

No, I exposed a fundamental ignorance on your part since your question is based on a false premise.

Who says we evolved from monkeys?

Answer the question.

from what did we evolve? :lol Chump is actually stumped...and is refusing to answer a basic question because it leaves his belief with holes in it

[ChumpDumper]

from what did we evolve? :lol Chump is actually stumped...and is refusing to answer a basic question because it leaves his belief with holes in itAbsolutely not.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question from hours if not days ago.

You're afraid to answer and have been all this time.

Who said we evolved from monkeys.

Name some names. Show us your understanding of this theory.

[Koolaid_Man]

Which evolutionists theorized that we evolved from monkeys?

Name some names.

I will in due time after I lead you as a horse to the river and make you drink...now if we don't share a common ancestry with Monkey's then what do we share our ancestry with? see you cannot run from my question because where is the forebear half breed will still exist

[ChumpDumper]

I will in due timeThe time is due.

Who said we evolved from monkeys?

Name some names. Gotta be real simple for you.

[RD2191]

Kool going in raw on these niggas.:lol

[Koolaid_Man]

Absolutely not.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question from hours if not days ago.

You're afraid to answer and have been all this time.

Who said we evolved from monkeys.

Name some names. Show us your understanding of this theory.

many evolutionists share this common beleif..google them...but that's besides the point....athesits are in bind answering this question period because whatever we share a common ancestry with the question remains the same..where are the half breeds

[ChumpDumper]

Kool going in raw on these niggas.:lolWho said we evolved from monkeys, rob?

Name some names.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I will in due time after I lead you as a horse to the river and make you drink...now if we don't share a common ancestry with Monkey's then what do we share our ancestry with? see you cannot run from my question because where is the forebear half breed will still exist

He never said anything about common ancestors. I think the presumption is that most life shares a common ancestor from the precambrian or something.

You not going to tell us what you really think or you just want to run around in circles?

[ChumpDumper]

many evolutionists share this common beleifSo name them.

Why can't you name them?

[RD2191]

Homo is the genus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus) of great apes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_apes) that includes modern humans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_humans) and species closely related to them.

[ChumpDumper]

I will in due time after I lead you as a horse to the river and make you drink...now if we don't share a common ancestry with Monkey's then what do we share our ancestry with?Wait, now you changed your question.

You said we evolved from monkeys, now you are saying we didn't.

Make up your mind.

[RD2191]

apes

[ChumpDumper]

apesSo you can't answer that question either.

Nice.

[ChumpDumper]

Why don't you guys get together and try to figure out what the hell you are trying to ask people here about evolution.

Form a committee.

[RD2191]

I'm asking what came before the ape that supposedly lead to man?

[Koolaid_Man]

So name them.

Why can't you name them?

I'm just getting started...but it's high time you started answering questions...here's an answer for you and more to come shortly...now where are the half breeds and why are the originals still around?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/7550033/Missing-link-between-man-and-apes-found.html

[Woo Bum-kon]

now if we don't share a common ancestry with Monkey's then what do we share our ancestry with?

That's not what you previously stated at all. You claimed that the theory of evolution claims that we evolved from monkeys, not that we share a common ancestor with them, which is why Chump refuted your claim. Don't at the last second pretend that you were talking about common ancestors when you clearly weren't.


see you cannot run from my question because where is the forebear half breed will still exist

Your conclusion does not logically follow at all. You and robdiaz shoe a complete ignorance in rudimentary knowledge about evolution.

[RD2191]

They have 1 fossil:lol

[Koolaid_Man]

That's not what you previously stated at all. You claimed that the theory of evolution claims that we evolved from monkeys, not that we share a common ancestor with them, which is why Chump refuted your claim. Don't at the last second pretend that you were talking about common ancestors when you clearly weren't.



Your conclusion does not logically follow at all. You and robdiaz shoe a complete ignorance in rudimentary knowledge about evolution.


because evolution is all pure and unadulterated bullshit....if we don't share a common ancestry with apes. monkeys, primates, or whatever the hell you want to call them..what do we share with? and where are the half breeds and why do the originals exist today? if it's as easy to comprehend as you "CLAIM" then EXPLAIN your belief

[xmas1997]

Ok, can any of you answer me this: When Will Pigs Fly? :lol

[RD2191]

The discovery is the most important find from Sterkfontein since an almost-complete fossil of a 3.3 million year old Australopithecus, nicknamed Little Foot, was found in 1994.
Another major discovery was the well-preserved skull of a 2.15 million year old Australopithecus africanus, nicknamed Mrs Ples, in 1947.

3 fossils and its over:lol

[Koolaid_Man]

They have 1 fossil:lol

now they're saying we didn't evolve from Apes when it was the central thesis of Darwins original belief...so let's throw the monkey's out the window...what did we evolve from?

[Koolaid_Man]

Ok, can any of you answer me this: When Will Pigs Fly? :lol

when SAWM's grow 10 inch cocks

[xmas1997]

now they're saying we didn't evolve from Apes when it was the central thesis of Darwins original belief...so let's throw the monkey's out the window...what did we evolve from?

Nooooooo, don't you dare throw fuzzys monkeys out the window! They are too funny! :lol

[RD2191]

They also say that evolution has no purpose even though Darwin claimed that the finches adapted so they could better feed on certain plants and fruits. So if there's no purpose why did that happen? Pretty fuckin lucky if you ask me.

[Woo Bum-kon]

because evolution is all pure and unadulterated bullshit....

Based on what?


if we don't share a common ancestry with apes. monkeys, primates, or whatever the hell you want to call them..what do we share with?

We so share a common ancestry with them. You lack basic reading comprehension.


and where are the half breeds and why do the originals exist today?

The half breeds and the originals died out.


if it's as easy to comprehend as you "CLAIM" then EXPLAIN your belief

It's been explained multiple times. There are also hundreds of websites that you can use to better understand evolution.

All I am seeing from you is strawmen.

[RD2191]

So no one has actually answered the question.

[Woo Bum-kon]

What question would that be?

[Koolaid_Man]

They also say that evolution has no purpose even though Darwin claimed that the finches adapted so they could better feed on certain plants and fruits. So if there's no purpose why did that happen? Pretty fuckin lucky if you ask me.

Darwin was a moron..


Darwin set out first to make his argument that humans had evolved from apes. Darwin studied the comparative anatomy and embryology of our own species in relation to that of gorillas, chimps, and orangutans. He pointed out that humans had rudimentary structures which were really vestiges of our past lives. He pointed out that humans have a tailbone, even though we have no tail. He brought up how wisdom teeth in small-faced Europeans were decreasing in size and structure, and that very often their only “purpose” was to become infected and painful. Some of us can wiggle our ears, and some of us can flex our scalp muscle. He used all of these converging lines of evidence to conclude that humans were most closely related to the African apes- the gorilla and the chimpanzee- and that the common ancestor of all three animals would be found in Africa.
He concludes, rather eloquently, “In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term “man” ought to be used. But this is a matter of very little importance… man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin.”

http://zinjanthropus.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/darwin-the-descent-of-man-and-human-evolution/

[Koolaid_Man]

Based on what?



We so share a common ancestry with them. You lack basic reading comprehension.



The half breeds and the originals died out.



It's been explained multiple times. There are also hundreds of websites that you can use to better understand evolution.

All I am seeing from you is strawmen.

the originals are still here...they're called monkeys and apes...why did the half breeds die out..was it so you could have some bullshit to beleive in

[Koolaid_Man]

:lmao@Darwin....


"I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale," he speculated.


The idea didn''t go over very well with the public. Darwin was so embarrassed by the ridicule he received that the swimming-bear passage was removed from later editions of the book.


Scientists now know that Darwin had the right idea but the wrong animal: instead of looking at bears, he should have instead been looking at cows and hippopotamuses.



http://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html

[RD2191]

Most importantly to me, Darwin’s insight into the similarity between humans and chimps and gorillas proved to be correct, and we now know that humans did, in fact evolve in Africa. The 1968 discovery of a hominid skull in South Africa’s Olduvai Gorge ushered African paleoanthropology to the forefront of human evolutionary studies.

1 skull:lol

[Woo Bum-kon]

Monkeys and apes are not the originals. You are flip flopping between claiming humans evolved from common ancestors to apes and humans evolved from apes. You can't even complain consistently.

[RD2191]

:lmao

[Koolaid_Man]

Monkeys and apes are not the originals. You are flip flopping between claiming humans evolved from common ancestors to apes and humans evolved from apes. You can't even complain consistently.

who are the originals? :lol

[RD2191]

FOR THE 50TH FUKIN TIME, WHAT WERE THE ORIGINALS AND WHAT LED TO THE ORIGINALS? WE FUKIN KNOW YOU THINK WE EVOLVED FROM A BIPEDAL PRIMATE, I WANNA KNOW WHAT CAME BEFORE THE BIPEDAL PRIMATE?

[RD2191]

who are the originals? :lol
:lmao

[RD2191]

No one can answer the fukin question:lol

[xmas1997]

I don't think pigs will ever fly! We just like to think they will. Kind of like when we come to a consensus in this thread. :lol

[Woo Bum-kon]

who are the originals? :lol

Original what?

[RD2191]

Original what?
:lmao

[RD2191]

Am I being punked?

[Koolaid_Man]

:lmao

Even the Africans in the jungle know if they want cover from the rain they need to build a hut....but even more so..If I want a 5 million dollar Mediterranean house with at least 10 concubines, several luxury cars, a jet, and a 2 acre pool with a waterfall... do you think in approximately 200 trillion years it will just appear after a massive dust storm and explosion?

[xmas1997]

Am I being punked?


If you see any pigs flying you are. Or if fuzzys monkeys show up, yes sir you are. :lol

[Woo Bum-kon]

Even the Africans in the jungle know if they want cover from the rain they need to build a hut....but even more so..If I want a 5 million dollar Mediterranean house with at least 10 concubines, several luxury cars, a jet, and a 2 acre pool with a waterfall... do you think in approximately 200 trillion years it will just appear after a massive dust storm and explosion?

Oh look! Another strawman!

[RD2191]

Well according to atheist the answer is yes:lol Because its perfectly logical to believe that something can design and construct itself:lol

[Koolaid_Man]

Oh look! Another strawman!

so how does my house get built.... lemme guess..a dirt ball forms with grass on the ground...after about 1 billion yrs it wood chips from trees fall on top of it...another billion yrs and more dust storms make the mound bigger....another billion yrs the foundation starts to take shape...then a nother storm blows perfectly cut wood into shape and tiles blow in with the wind to form the roof...it rains and then a nice pool is formed....beautiful women start to show up after another billion yrs....another big bag and I got my rolls royce :lol...evolution is pretty fucking awesome

[Woo Bum-kon]

lol design

You're right--it's more logical to believe in a god that has nothing supporting it except a book that contradicts itself a million times.

[RD2191]

so how does my house get built.... lemme guess..a dirt ball forms with grass on the ground...after about 1 billion yrs it wood chips from trees fall on top of it...another billion yrs and more dust storms make the mound bigger....another billion yrs the foundation starts to take shape...then a nother storm blows perfectly cut wood into shape and tiles blow in with the wind to form the roof...it rains and then a nice pool is formed....beautiful women start to show up after another billion yrs....another big bag and I got my rolls royce :lol...evolution is pretty fucking awesome
:lmao

[Koolaid_Man]

lol design

You're right--it's more logical to believe in a god that has nothing supporting it except a book that contradicts itself a million times.

even if you throw out the Bible with the bath water signs of intelligent design blows evolution out the water

[Koolaid_Man]

if evolution didn't create a rolex watch it dam sure didn't create the universe

[Woo Bum-kon]

even if you throw out the Bible with the bath water signs of intelligent design blows evolution out the water

1.) Intelligent Design is a fancy term for Creationism. Creationism is nothing but an argument from ignorance.
2.) Evolution deals with the origins of species. Why are you conflating it with Cosmology?

Again, neither of you understand the basic fundamentals of what evolution is. It's embarrassing.

[Woo Bum-kon]

if evolution didn't create a rolex watch it dam sure didn't create the universe

Nobody claims that it did. Another strawman.

[Woo Bum-kon]

if evolution didn't create a rolex watch it dam sure didn't create the universe

Non-sequitur and a strawman.

[Koolaid_Man]

1.) Intelligent Design is a fancy term for Creationism. Creationism is nothing but an argument from ignorance.
2.) Evolution deals with the origins of species. Why are you conflating it with Cosmology?

Again, neither of you understand the basic fundamentals of what evolution is. It's embarrassing.


you never told me who the human originals were ..here's your chance

[RD2191]

strawman these nuts faggot, you keep saying we don't understand yet you never gave or explained an answer

[xmas1997]

Ok, maybe pigs will never fly, kinda like this thread. But I did see monkeys flying in The Wizard of Oz, so there, fuzzy is on to something with his monkeys even if Darwin wasn't.

[RD2191]

Ok, maybe pigs will never fly, kinda like this thread. But I did see monkeys flying in The Wizard of Oz, so there, fuzzy is on to something with his monkeys even if Darwin wasn't.
:lmao

[Koolaid_Man]

Nobody claims that it did. Another strawman.


so you're saying evolution can create the universe but not a rolex?

[Woo Bum-kon]

you never told me who the human originals were ..here's your chance

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo


strawman these nuts faggot, you keep saying we don't understand yet you never gave or explained an answer

An answer to what, idiot? You have asked hundreds of illogical and idiotic questions in this thread. You're going to have to be more specific.

[Woo Bum-kon]

so you're saying evolution can create the universe but not a rolex?

No, I'm not. You don't understand what evolution means.

[Koolaid_Man]

No, I'm not. You don't understand what evolution means.

explain it...I yield my remaining time to your retarded ass....proceed

[Woo Bum-kon]

:lol I'm retarded but you're too stupid to take five seconds to google "evolution" and find out what it means from a source other than some creationist.

[RD2191]

We are dealing with a retard here. We know you believe we evolved from the genus Homo, I wanna know what led to Homo?

[Woo Bum-kon]

We are dealing with a retard here. We know you believe we evolved from the genus Homo, I wanna know what led to Homo?

The second sentence in the Wiki link, retard.

[RD2191]

Homo is the genus (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus) of great apes (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_apes) that includes modern humans (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_humans) and species closely related to them. The genus is estimated to be about 2.3 to 2.4 million years old,[1] (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo#cite_note-encylopediahumanevolution-1)[2] (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo#cite_note-evolutionthe1st4billionyears-2) possibly having evolved from australopithecine (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecine) ancestors, with the appearance of Homo habilis (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis). Several species, including Australopithecus garhi (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_garhi), Australopithecus sediba (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_sediba), Australopithecus africanus (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_africanus), andAustralopithecus afarensis (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis), have been proposed as the direct ancestor of the Homo lineage.[3] (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo#cite_note-3)[4] (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo#cite_note-4) Each of these species have morphological features that align them with Homo, but there is no consensus on which actually gave rise to Homo, assuming it was not an as-yet undiscovered species.

[RD2191]

Possibly? DO YOU KNOW WHAT POSSIBLY MEANS?

[Trill Clinton]

damn y'all got redzero resorting to posting wiki links, sad. anyways, i can't wait for the new pair or jordan's evolution is going to leave on my doorstep tomorrow:toast

[RD2191]

Each of these species have morphological features that align them with Homo, but there is no consensus on which actually gave rise to Homo, assuming it was not an as-yet undiscovered species.

[RD2191]

Checkmate atheist.

[Woo Bum-kon]

You asked a question and you got an answer. How long are you going to play this game? You ask where an ancestor came from, receive an answer, then ask who the ancestor's ancestor came from. It's getting very lame.

[Woo Bum-kon]

damn y'all got redzero resorting to posting wiki links, sad. anyways, i can't wait for the new pair or jordan's evolution is going to leave on my doorstep tomorrow:toast

Like robdiaz did several times before? Lol retarded Uncle Tom.

[RD2191]

Dude, that has been my original question for the longest time. How can evolution be a fact when we don't even know where the fukin genus homo came from?

[Woo Bum-kon]

Dude, that has been my original question for the longest time. How can evolution be a fact when we don't even know where the fukin genus homo came from?

Then your original question is moronic because evolution doesn't just apply to human beings.

Jesus Christ, you people are fucking stupid.

[Koolaid_Man]

damn y'all got redzero resorting to posting wiki links, sad. anyways, i can't wait for the new pair or jordan's evolution is going to leave on my doorstep tomorrow:toast

you gonna hear a big bang in the morning and viola just like this:

OdBv1kBdfhI

[RD2191]

So he can't answer the question.

[xmas1997]

I'm just waiting patiently for someone to interject the alien seeding theory. Wouldn't it be ironic if the aliens turned out to be flying pigs? Or worse, those flying monkeys from Oz? Those monkeys were creepy! :lol

[Woo Bum-kon]

I just did answer the question, moron. Your premise is flawed, because humans aren't the only species that evolved. You are looking at evolution in a vacuum for no reason.

[RD2191]

Woo, I know this. I wanna know what led to the first primate, not the first human. Did it just appear out of nowhere? What did it evolve from? Have any of these fossils been found?

[Woo Bum-kon]

Woo, I know this.

If you knew that, you would not have asked such a stupid question. Period.


I wanna know what led to the first primate, not the first human.

No, you do not. If you actually wanted answers, you would have looked them up a long time ago. I gave you a link to talk origins, which answers several questions that you asked here. Did you try looking up answers there? No. Why? Because it's biased? Do you know how dumb you sound? Is a Physics book biased when it claims that things fall when they are dropped? And if you're so against bias, why do you think asking these questions to people on message boards who accept somehow prevents bias?


Did it just appear out of nowhere?

Nothing just appeared out of nowhere. If you knew what evolution was, you wouldn't ask such a stupid fucking question.


What did it evolve from? Have any of these fossils been found?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate#Evolutionary_history

And before you post, "HURR THEY THINK THEY DON'T KNOW!" I will ask you this: Are you willing to jump off the top of a tall building with absolutely no means of landing safely? Why not? Is it because you are afraid that gravity will pull you down to the ground, killing you? Why would you be afraid of that? Scientists don't know all there is about gravity, so that must mean that it's not real, right? That's the exact same line of reasoning that you are using.

"But we know that gravity occurs."

So? We know that evolution occurs, too. Why do you reject the theory of evolution but accept the theory of gravity?

[Clipper Nation]

I wanna know what led to Homo?
Koolaid_Man's parents having sex....

[RD2191]

So now we came from lemurs:lmao And no, we don't know that evolution occurs, has anyone ever observed evolution?

[ChumpDumper]

I have never seen two people high five each other's ignorance more than kool and rob. :toast

[Woo Bum-kon]

So now we came from lemurs:lmao

If evolution is so wrong and ridiculous, why do you resort to strawmen to make your argument?


And no, we don't know that evolution occurs, has anyone ever observed evolution?

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe

Yet again, you asked a stupid fucking question that was already answered by talk origins.

Again, you are a living, breathing cliche. You are using damn-near every single argument against evolution that has been brought up and discredited decades ago. Your worldview is so threatened by it that you are incapable of looking at it rationally.

[RD2191]

Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

[RD2191]

and the coelacanth was thought to have evolved into roughly its current form approximately 400 million years ago.[6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth#cite_note-ref4-6):lmao

[RD2191]

this mother fucker said fuck evolution:lmao

[Woo Bum-kon]

Oh look! More reading comprehension failures.

It always amuses me how theists have impossibly high standards of evidence for evolution, the big bang, and abiogenesis, while at the same time having absolutely no standards at all when it comes to their respective religions.

[RD2191]

doesn't that pretty much fuck up the entire theory

[RD2191]

in before it didn't need to evolve. evolutionist are so full of shit, they can pretty much bend the fukin rules or make up their own rules when they want:lmao

[Woo Bum-kon]

No, it doesn't. Alligators, crocodiles, and roaches have been around for millions of years and are generally unchanged.

Explain to me what you think evolution is, and then explain how you think the coelacanths disprove it.

[Woo Bum-kon]

in before it didn't need to evolve. evolutionist are so full of shit, they can pretty much bend the fukin rules or make up their own rules when they want:lmao

What rule would that be? When will you stop making up shit?

[RD2191]

so according to evolution, if humans keep jumping into water they will eventually be able to breathe underwater

[Woo Bum-kon]

You're just asking the same stupid questions a million times, with slight variations. You already know that that is not what evolution claims.

It's been clear for a long time that you don't know anything about evolution and simply have no desire to learn. You feel that it threatens your belief in an invisible sky daddy, so you misinterpret it (sometimes deliberately and sometimes through sheer ignorance) in a vain attempt to make your opponent look stupid. You are lame and you take pride in your complete ignorance.

The most ironic thing is that you claim to not want to explain your religious views, because you fear that atheists will pick them apart no matter what you post. It's ironic because not only do you automatically reject every claim that atheists make, you put words in their mouths and attack claims that they don't even make more than you attack claims that they actually do make.