Evolution...?

[Avante]

snails aren't our ancestors, no.

What was the very fist living creature to step foot on earth?

[mouse]

Then it gets more right.

That's why science is.

So Science is about guessing? speculating?





You were wrong before and you stay wrong, just more loudly wrong.


So then why can't Science be wrong about the Big Bang?

[mouse]

What was the very fist living creature to step foot on earth?

He doesn't get it.

Either that or he found himself over his head in a debate he never researched.

I say both.

[Avante]

He doesn't get it.

Either that or he found himself over his head in a debate he never researched.

I say both.

So according to all these dummies....


For some unknown reason...life! The first life being little fishies, then over a long long time they start evolving into dinosaurs.

Oh hell yes that makes far more sense than an intelligent design. And there is little doubt the complexities of DNA like life can just happen, hahahaha!

[mouse]

People who debate Evolution including the experts and Professors always skip over the big Bang and how the Earth even came about they want to go right to the fossils.

That is one advantage the Creationists have they have no problem going to the start of the universe.

It's like debating who shot JFK and not starting with all the facts just start at the gunshots.

[admiralsnackbar]

People who debate Evolution including the experts and Professors always skip over the big Bang and how the Earth even came about they want to go right to the fossils. That is one advantage the Creationists have they have no problem going to the start of the universe. It's like debating who shot JFK and not starting with all the facts just start at the gunshots. Why is it an advantage to talk out one's ass? People who defend evolution without talking about the big bang do so because they limit themselves to argue from evidence, and the ostensible origin of the Earth precedes evidence of life here by billions of years. And for the record, the theory of evolution DOES posit we share an ancestry with snails. And plankton. And bacteria.

[spurraider21]

What was the very fist living creature to step foot on earth?
i dont know. but snails aren't human ancestors

[spurraider21]

People who debate Evolution including the experts and Professors always skip over the big Bang and how the Earth even came about they want to go right to the fossils.

That is one advantage the Creationists have they have no problem going to the start of the universe.

It's like debating who shot JFK and not starting with all the facts just start at the gunshots.
do you want to talk about the big bang? start a thread about the big bang. evolution is a different discussion.

evolution is about species changing over time. it isn't about the start of a universe, the origin of earth, or even the origin of the first life on earth.

the origin of life on earth is often assumed to be abiogenesis, which is what you seem to disagree with. but that's an independent discussion from evolution

[Avante]

i dont know. but snails aren't human ancestors

Didn't snails also come from whatever that first living creature to step foot on earth?

[Avante]

do you want to talk about the big bang? start a thread about the big bang. evolution is a different discussion.

evolution is about species changing over time. it isn't about the start of a universe, the origin of earth, or even the origin of the first life on earth.

the origin of life on earth is often assumed to be abiogenesis, which is what you seem to disagree with. but that's an independent discussion from evolution

Dude, this is my thread and mouse can talk about anything he wants if you don't like it leave, got it?

mouse ignore this retard and talk about whatever ya want.

[Jeff Leppard]

Didn't snails also come from whatever that first living creature to step foot on earth?

Snails are actually a quite good example of a sea creature that adapted to life on land.

[Avante]

Snails are actually a quite good example of a sea creature that adapted to life on land.

So it slowly crawled out of the abyss knowing he'd/she'd find snail food, hmmmm? So what creatures evolved from the snail?

[Jeff Leppard]

So it slowly crawled out of the abyss knowing he'd/she'd find snail food, hmmmm? So what creatures evolved from the snail?

Here you go, mate. Short read. Fairly elementary. Enjoy!

http://arnobrosi.tripod.com/snails/evolution.html

[spurraider21]

Didn't snails also come from whatever that first living creature to step foot on earth?
snails, worms, and other invertebrates came from different types of fish than the bony fish that first walked on land

[spurraider21]

Dude, this is my thread and mouse can talk about anything he wants if you don't like it leave, got it?

mouse ignore this retard and talk about whatever ya want.
this thread is called "evolution"

[Avante]

snails, worms, and other invertebrates came from different types of fish than the bony fish that first walked on land

So how come they didn't evolve into big creatures like the fish did?

[Avante]

this thread is called "evolution"

And since I'm the daddy of this thread, I'll let everyone know they can talk about anything they want. If you can't handle that, bummer.

[Avante]

Who would have thought that all it takes is....I don't wanna be a fish......BOOM! 177 pages, hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!

[admiralsnackbar]

For the same reason many old-school businesses still exist alongside dotcoms -- many of them are still viable. Evolution doesn't mean one "master" organism is evolving in a linear fashion, it means outlier organisms are capable of success or failure. When success occurs, outliers settle different parts of the biological "economy."

[Jeff Leppard]

So how come they didn't evolve into big creatures like the fish did?

Come on, man. Everything did not evolve in the same manner. There are all kinds of biological and enviromental factors involved. Are you dense, or are you just being obtuse?

[Avante]

Come on, man. Everything did not evolve in the same manner. There are all kinds of biological and enviromental factors involved. Are you dense, or are you just being obtuse?

This is dense.....


During the evolution of snails two important things happend: One is a process called torsion,most of the internal organs were twisted 180 degrees anticlockwise.This meant that the mantle cavity,gills and anus were situated in front of the animal now. This allowed for more room in the shell and the head could be withdrawn first.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That's stupid.

[spurraider21]

So how come they didn't evolve into big creatures like the fish did?
why would they?

[Jeff Leppard]

Yes. It's stupid that you don't understand it.

[Avante]

why would they?

Why would fish?

[spurraider21]

Why would fish?
did you know genetic mutations are typically random? there's no reason for them. there's no "why"

[Avante]

Yes. It's stupid that you don't understand it.

Little man, cool this ridiculous "you don't understand it" bullshit, ok guy? I understand it and it makes no sense ok shorty?

We read....they evolved into.....ok, WHY?????????????????????????

Dude, be cool, got it?

[Avante]

did you know genetic mutations are typically random? there's no reason for them. there's no "why"

So we just shine....why?...and go with...just believe it, ok?....right?

[ChumpDumper]

Little man, cool this ridiculous "you don't understand it" bullshit, ok guy? I understand it and it makes no sense ok shorty?

We read....they evolved into.....ok, WHY?????????????????????????

Dude, be cool, got it?Why did you have gill slits and a tail Avante?

[Avante]

So snails pretty much stayed snails while fish evolved into dinosaurs, ha~~~~~~~~~~~~

Imagine a snail dinosaur, a dinosaur in a shell, ha~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[ChumpDumper]

So snails pretty much stayed snails while fish evolved into dinosaurs, ha~~~~~~~~~~~~Why did you have gill slits and a tail Avante?

[spurraider21]

So snails pretty much stayed snails while fish evolved into dinosaurs, ha~~~~~~~~~~~~

Imagine a snail dinosaur, a dinosaur in a shell, ha~~~~~~~~~~~~~
fish didnt go away. there are still fish.

[Avante]

fish didnt go away. there are still fish.

Well no shit,

Dude, are you really as dumb as you come off here?

So a little fish grew into a T-Rex, right? Do you honestly believe that stupidity?

[boutons_deux]

A short form total destruction of creationist/master designer/Bible humper bullshit

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

By John Rennie (http://www.scientificamerican.com/author/john-rennie) | Jun 17, 2002


http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/cache/file/92E8BE24-7F27-4D2A-8DD5982BB9F691D0_article.jpg?282B7


When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.

Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.

Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.

To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.

"Survival of the fittest" is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In a pioneering study of finches on the Galápagos Islands, Peter R. Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild [see his article "Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches"; Scientific American, October 1991].
The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.

3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Gal¿pagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.

4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.

No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.

Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless.

Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.

5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.

Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology.

Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to take scientists' comments out of context to exaggerate and distort the disagreements. Anyone acquainted with the works of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University knows that in addition to co-authoring the punctuated-equilibrium model, Gould was one of the most eloquent defenders and articulators of evolution. (Punctuated equilibrium explains patterns in the fossil record by suggesting that most evolutionary changes occur within geologically brief intervals--which may nonetheless amount to hundreds of generations.) Yet creationists delight in dissecting out phrases from Gould's voluminous prose to make him sound as though he had doubted evolution, and they present punctuated equilibrium as though it allows new species to materialize overnight or birds to be born from reptile eggs.

When confronted with a quotation from a scientific authority that seems to question evolution, insist on seeing the statement in context. Almost invariably, the attack on evolution will prove illusory.

6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.

The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, "If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?" New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.

[boutons_deux]

7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.

The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.

Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.

8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.

As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as

78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.

9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.

This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.

The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.

More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.

10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.

Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.

Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.

11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.

Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species.

Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved.

12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.

Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms' physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership.

Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection--for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits--and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.

13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.

Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time isArchaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.

Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds--it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.

Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.

14. Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.

This "argument from design" is the backbone of most recent attacks on evolution, but it is also one of the oldest. In 1802 theologian William Paley wrote that if one finds a pocket watch in a field, the most reasonable conclusion is that someone dropped it, not that natural forces created it there. By analogy, Paley argued, the complex structures of living things must be the handiwork of direct, divine invention. Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species as an answer to Paley: he explained how natural forces of selection, acting on inherited features, could gradually shape the evolution of ornate organic structures.

Generations of creationists have tried to counter Darwin by citing the example of the eye as a structure that could not have evolved. The eye's ability to provide vision depends on the perfect arrangement of its parts, these critics say. Natural selection could thus never favor the transitional forms needed during the eye's evolution--what good is half an eye? Anticipating this criticism, Darwin suggested that even "incomplete" eyes might confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement. Biology has vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms, eyes have evolved independently.)

Today's intelligent-design advocates are more sophisticated than their predecessors, but their arguments and goals are not fundamentally different. They criticize evolution by trying to demonstrate that it could not account for life as we know it and then insist that the only tenable alternative is that life was designed by an unidentified intelligence.

15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.

"Irreducible complexity" is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap--a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. He makes similar points about the blood's clotting mechanism and other molecular systems.

Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells.

The key is that the flagellum's component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all.

Complexity of a different kind--"specified complexity"--is the cornerstone of the intelligent-design arguments of William A. Dembski of Baylor University in his books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch. Essentially his argument is that living things are complex in a way that undirected, random processes could never produce. The only logical conclusion, Dembski asserts, in an echo of Paley 200 years ago, is that some superhuman intelligence created and shaped life.

Dembski's argument contains several holes. It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists only of random processes or designing intelligences. Researchers into nonlinear systems and cellular automata at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere have demonstrated that simple, undirected processes can yield extraordinarily complex patterns. Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have arisen naturally.

"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.

In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?)

Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion--that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.

Logically, this is misleading: even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Moreover, it does not make one intelligent-design theory more reasonable than another. Listeners are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituting their religious beliefs for scientific ideas.

Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape.

Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

[spurraider21]

Well no shit,

Dude, are you really as dumb as you come off here?

So a little fish grew into a T-Rex, right? Do you honestly believe that stupidity?
No. Nobody is saying a little fish grew into a trex.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.empowertexans.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/White-Flag-e1406739911857.jpg

No, seriously. I accept your surrender. You can stop now.

[RandomGuy]

No. Nobody is saying a little fish grew into a trex.

Actually that not entirely unfair summary. All land vertebrate life began in the sea.

A branch of primitive fish did give rise to the first amphibians, and from there, reptiles, and dinosaurs.

https://paleoaerie.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/tetrapod_evo.jpg?w=960

At this point, I am pretty sure he doesn't buy his taglines anyways, he is more intelligent than he lets on, most of his stuff here just says "lazy, not stupid". They aren't worth really responding to, IMO, other than with mockery.

[spurraider21]

Actually that not entirely unfair summary. All land vertebrate life began in the sea.

A branch of primitive fish did give rise to the first amphibians, and from there, reptiles, and dinosaurs.

At this point, I am pretty sure he doesn't buy his taglines anyways. They aren't worth really responding to, IMO, other than with mockery.
i know. he's making it sound like it happened during the course of a lifetime

[RandomGuy]

i know. he's making it sound like it happened during the course of a lifetime

Perhaps. If so, it simply reinforces the hypothesis that he doesn't buy his own B.S.

[mouse]

Actually that not entirely unfair summary. All land vertebrate life began in the sea.

A branch of primitive fish did give rise to the first amphibians, and from there, reptiles, and dinosaurs.

https://paleoaerie.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/tetrapod_evo.jpg?w=960

At this point, I am pretty sure he doesn't buy his taglines anyways, he is more intelligent than he lets on, most of his stuff here just says "lazy, not stupid". They aren't worth really responding to, IMO, other than with mockery.


If this bullshit was true where are the transitional fossils?

[mouse]

The "Living Fossil" Fish Proves Evolution is Wrong

The Coelacanth fish was touted to be a transitional form with half-formed legs and primitive lungs, ready to transition onto land. This myth was exploded in December, 1938 when a live Coelacanth was caught in a fisherman's net off the eastern coast of South Africa. It is now known that the natives of the Comoro Islands had been catching and eating the fish for years.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-owydD67Jt_U/Uqd_mm9WChI/AAAAAAAAI2c/G84E35b6ySo/s640/evolution+coelacanth+living+fossil.jpg

It did not have half-formed legs or primitive lungs. It was simply a regular fish that people thought was extinct. Evolutionist claimed the 350 million-year-old Coelacanth evolved into animals with legs, feet, and lungs.

This not the case. We now see that the fish recently caught is exactly like the 350 million-year-old fossil. It did not evolve at all.

The Coelacanth is a star witness against the false theory of evolution. After 350 million years, the fish still doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[mouse]

Why is it an advantage to talk out one's ass? .

Because it allows you to have a conversation on the phone while your eating.

[mouse]

People who defend evolution without talking about the big bang do so because they limit themselves to argue from evidence, and the ostensible origin of the Earth precedes evidence of life here by billions of years.


Translation: A fancy excuse to avoid the subject.



And for the record, the theory of evolution DOES posit we share an ancestry with snails. And plankton. And bacteria.

Try telling that to SpursRaider

[mouse]

do you want to talk about the big bang? start a thread about the big bang. evolution is a different discussion.

evolution is about species changing over time. it isn't about the start of a universe, the origin of earth, or even the origin of the first life on earth.

the origin of life on earth is often assumed to be abiogenesis, which is what you seem to disagree with. but that's an independent discussion from evolution


You want to leave out the Science of how the earth came about then admit Science doesn't know.

If you don't then you support Science and the big bang that means your going to support anything you read in a book.

you cant have it both ways the luxury of only defending Science on the issue you choose, just admit not all Science is legit and we cam move on.

[spurraider21]

the science of how the earth came is different than the science of species changing over time

[admiralsnackbar]

The "Living Fossil" Fish Proves Evolution is Wrong The Coelacanth fish was touted to be a transitional form with half-formed legs and primitive lungs, ready to transition onto land. This myth was exploded in December, 1938 when a live Coelacanth was caught in a fisherman's net off the eastern coast of South Africa. It is now known that the natives of the Comoro Islands had been catching and eating the fish for years. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-owydD67Jt_U/Uqd_mm9WChI/AAAAAAAAI2c/G84E35b6ySo/s640/evolution+coelacanth+living+fossil.jpg It did not have half-formed legs or primitive lungs. It was simply a regular fish that people thought was extinct. Evolutionist claimed the 350 million-year-old Coelacanth evolved into animals with legs, feet, and lungs. This not the case. We now see that the fish recently caught is exactly like the 350 million-year-old fossil. It did not evolve at all. The Coelacanth is a star witness against the false theory of evolution. After 350 million years, the fish still doesn't have a leg to stand on. :lol That is a weak-ass argument that doesn't even demonstrate a passing understanding of how evolution is understood to work. Ex: bacteria still exist, too. Just because some bacteria developed symbiotic relationships with others and ultimately developed into vertebrate organisms millions of years later doesn't change the fact that plenty of bacteria are perfectly successful as they are. Evolution has all sorts of vectors, but the primary ones cluster around a species' necessity for adaptation to their environment (if a food source becomes scarce, organisms that can adapt to another food source can both thrive and simultaneously lessen the pressure on organisms that remain dependent on the original food). It's true that Coelocanths were thought to be extinct (because scientists had fossil records of them, but no evidence they were still living in the wild), and that it was a pleasant surprise when scientists were able to compare their studies of the fossil record with live specimens; but what your article leaves out is that Coelocanths ARE an early example of lungfish, and that the evolution of the lung IS a precursor to amphibian organisms.

[Avante]

i know. he's making it sound like it happened during the course of a lifetime

So you actually think I think a fish grew into a dinosaur in it's lifetime, hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You cannot be this dumb, wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So you think fish EVOLVED in dinosaurs over a LONGGGGGGGGGG time, right?

A little fishies/brontasauras....hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ChumpDumper]

So you actually think I think a fish grew into a dinosaur in it's lifetime, hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You cannot be this dumb, wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So you think fish EVOLVED in dinosaurs over a LONGGGGGGGGGG time, right?

A little fishies/brontasauras....hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!W hy did you have gill slits and a long tail, Avante?

Were you trying to be a fish?

[admiralsnackbar]

Translation: A fancy excuse to avoid the subject.



What's fancy about declining to talk about things you don't know anything concrete about? There are certainly hypotheses being tested to explore the origin of life and proto-life at the chemical level, but none of that research is considered as robust or verifiable as the theory of evolution. That stuff still has a long ways to go.

[Avante]

We did not evolve from a fish people, if you're dumb enought to buy that bullshit how about keeping it to yourself ok, it makes ya look retarded, ok?

Here's what's going on,...

I think anyone trying to peddle that shit is an idiot, ok? I don't listen to idiots so why bother?

[ChumpDumper]

We did not evolve from a fish people, if you're dumb enought to buy that bullshit how about keeping it to yourself ok, it makes ya look retarded, ok?
Why did you have gill slits and a long tail, Avante?

Were you trying to be a fish?

[Avante]

I gots me a woman
stands bout 6 foot 3
long and tall
and crazy bout me

she calls me daddy
I calls her babe
shes my master
I'm her slave

she likes to fuck
and so do I
we do it every day
and that's no lie

so life is good
you could say it was great
one thing for sure
we were never fish
or some ape

[admiralsnackbar]

We did not evolve from a fish people, if you're dumb enought to buy that bullshit how about keeping it to yourself ok, it makes ya look retarded, ok? Here's what's going on,... I think anyone trying to peddle that shit is an idiot, ok? I don't listen to idiots so why bother? So you started this thread to not discuss evolution. Got it. :lol

[Avante]

So you started this thread to not discuss evolution. Got it. :lol

I started this thread to do something never done before here, a 200 page thread. Well aware of my power to draw in the leechs/assholes and also knew that a great topic to see just how many are idiots is EVOLUTION.

As you can see I'm a master at this.:king

Just.....

Avante....you might have been a fish I wasn't.

And here they come....WE WERE FISH DAMNIT....FISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hahahaha!!!!!

[ChumpDumper]

I started this thread to do something never done before here, a 200 page thread. Well aware of my power to draw in the leechs/assholes and also knew that a great topic to see just how many are idiots is EVOLUTION.

As you can see I'm a master at this.:king

Just.....

Avante....you might have been a fish I wasn't.

And here they come....WE WERE FISH DAMNIT....FISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hahahaha!!!!!Why did you have gill slits and a long tail, Avante?

Were you trying to be a fish?

You'll never answer and start ranting about jes trollin' and making irrelevant lists, Youtubes and poems.

As you can see I'm a master at this.:king

Now you'll say "Look at wut I done!" and change your diaper.

[Avante]

Well if I wanna get my record 200 pages, I need to start talking to this freak again. As we all know the fuck is lonely and will follow anyone around who pets the fuck forever, yep, just like a dog.

Should I I toss this poor dog a bone?

[ChumpDumper]

Well if I wanna get my record 200 pages, I need to start talking to this freak again. As we all know the fuck is lonely and will follow anyone around who pets the fuck forever, yep, just like a dog.

Should I I toss this poor dog a bone?
Whatever you do, we all know you are terrified to explain why you had gill slits and a long tail.

Just like a fish.

So go ahead, shit yourself again and pad your post count. You lost the evolution argument long ago. All you have left to lose now is more of your shit.

[Avante]

See what I mean, hahaha!!!!!!!!!! Who actually reads this freak, anyone?

I think I'll wait until I get up over 190 pages then pet this freak on his head and let him bring me home.

Here it is 2015 and still no cure for stupid.

[ChumpDumper]

See what I mean, hahaha!!!!!!!!!! Who actually reads this freak, anyone?

I think I'll wait until I get up over 190 pages then pet this freak on his head and let him bring me home.

Here it is 2015 and still no cure for stupid.See what I mean, hahaha!!!!!!!!!!

I think I'll keep asking this question Avante is terrified to answer until he shits his pants so badly that he will declare he will never respond to me again....again.

Here it is 2015 and Avante still can't explain his own gill slits and long tail.

Why did you have gill slits and a long tail, Avante?

Were you trying to be a fish?

You may now melt down some more and plead for other people to understand you are jes trollin'. :king

[Avante]

poor little guy
it's so sad to see
just how badly
he needs Avante

here he is again
and again
sucking my dick
cum dripping off his chin

but he seems to like it
as we all can see
just a fucking faggot
obsessed with.....me

[ChumpDumper]

Avante had gill slits.

Now he just shits.

[Avante]

Does anyone actually read this freak?

[Avante]

I just saw a UFO.

[spurraider21]

cool

[Avante]

cool

What do we have that can just hover without making a sound? I keep my binoculars in a hall closet, I ran in to get them and when I returned, poof gone.

[Avante]

This is the second time I've seen a UFO. The last time was in my navy days out at sea. I have no doubts it wasn't of this planet.

[spurraider21]

UFO doesn't necessarily mean its an alien spacecraft. it just means you dont know what it is

[spurraider21]

What do we have that can just hover without making a sound? I keep my binoculars in a hall closet, I ran in to get them and when I returned, poof gone.
clouds

[Avante]

UFO doesn't necessarily mean its an alien spacecraft. it just means you dont know what it is

We have to talk son, how old are you?

First you tell me..."we still have fish" And now ya tell me what a UFO is? Dude, I raised 4 kids, ok? X-insurance sales, ok? Will you please stop with your bullshit?

Now, I saw an alien space craft in 71 off the coast of Viet Nam. A whole bunch of us saw it. The siteing was a real big deal and our ship was just one of many that saw it.

Tonight, I saw a metallic looking something just hovering totally quiet about a half mile above my house. Will be checking tomorrows paper to see if others saw it.

[cantthinkofanything]

What do we have that can just hover without making a sound?

Farts.

[spurraider21]

We have to talk son, how old are you?

First you tell me..."we still have fish" And now ya tell me what a UFO is? Dude, I raised 4 kids, ok? X-insurance sales, ok? Will you please stop with your bullshit?

Now, I saw an alien space craft in 71 off the coast of Viet Nam. A whole bunch of us saw it. The siteing was a real big deal and our ship was just one of many that saw it.

Tonight, I saw a metallic looking something just hovering totally quiet about a half mile above my house. Will be checking tomorrows paper to see if others saw it.
UFO stands for UNIDENTIFIED flying object

a ufo can be anything, not necessarily an alien spacecraft

[Avante]

Farts.

Do you ever cooL the..."see see me everytone, I funny huh?"....well?

Texas, sheesh!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Avante]

UFO stands for UNIDENTIFIED flying object

a ufo can be anything, not necessarily an alien spacecraft

Well no shit, dude, do you honestly believe ANYONE doesn't know that? Come on little fella, sheesh~~~~~~

I saw what I believe to be an alien space craft, ya see we have nothing that hovers silently like that.

[spurraider21]

Well no shit, dude, do you honestly believe ANYONE doesn't know that? Come on little fella, sheesh~~~~~~
you sure act like it

[cantthinkofanything]

Well no shit, dude, do you honestly believe ANYONE doesn't know that? Come on little fella, sheesh~~~~~~

I saw what I believe to be an alien space craft, ya see we have nothing that hovers silently like that.

Unidentified fartlike odor

[cantthinkofanything]

Do you ever cooL the..."see see me everytone, I funny huh?"....well?

Texas, sheesh!!!!!!!!!!!!

I meant after the expulsion. Then they don't make a sound.

[Avante]

you sure act like it

No I don't so why lie?

[Avante]

I meant after the expulsion. Then they don't make a sound.

Do your parents allow you on the computer after 10 at night?

[cantthinkofanything]

Oh...that reminds me. Hey Avante, what's the difference between you and a bowl of apples?

[cantthinkofanything]

The bowl of apples doesn't have sex with children.

[Avante]

The bowl of apples doesn't have sex with children.

Anyone who has sex with children needs their dick cut off and stuck down their throat. They are the lowest scum on earth as I have said many times so why act fucking retarded?

Dude, are you really this lame to that Navy world, come on guy.

[Avante]

Let me see the hands of those out there that didn't know what....

U
F
O

..stood for.

Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Is this fucker for real?

Never seen so many idiots in one place before, it really is amazing.

Texas.... hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Avante]

Some predictions....

Gay footballers will not...I'M GAY DEAL WITH IT...if they plan an NFL career.

We will see something similiar to 9/11 before the end of the year.

Clipper Nation will call 10 people...faggot...before the end of the year.

ChumpStupid will post in this thread...soon!

spurraider will continue to tell people what UFO, NFL, WWE, NBA, NCAA, ACC, HBCU...stand for, haha!!!!!!

Blake will continue to try and sell..."I'm really smart, you're not"....hahahaha!!!!!!!!! While looking dumb as a sock.

Kool will never outgrow...OH MY GOD SHE HAS A PUSSY,YIPPPPEEEE!!

This thread will hit 200 pages before football season starts.

[spurraider21]

avante will keep talking to himself

[Avante]

avante will keep talking to himself

Trust me amigo Avante doesn't have to talk to himself in case ya haven't noticed. I got leechs hanging all over me.

Dude, did you honestly believe me/anyone didn't know what UFO stood for, hahaha!!!!!!!!!! What did you think I thought it did stand for, well?

Come on little guy, hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tell me again..."there are fish still in the sea ya know" ...hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Hell, no wonder you believe in evolution, you're an idiot.

[Avante]

I'm starting to think those MasterDesigners were aliens.

[Avante]

http://www.obsessedwithwrestling.com/pictures/d/dustyrhodes/29.jpg

[Avante]

http://www.obsessedwithwrestling.com/pictures/f/fredblassie/04.jpg

[pgardn]

actually, from what I understand it is the hard part. you have to have the membrane for anything else to function, to what I understand. Again, fascinating research.

Membranes allow you to divide space into functional units that can be dedicated to specific reactions. And of course let specific items in and out. It makes for division of labor on the biochemical level. The membranes we see today are most likely much more complex as multicellularity requires the membrane to be able to receive signals.

The actual role of proteins in enzymatic pathways evolving is much more difficult IMO.

[Avante]

Membranes allow you to divide space into functional units that can be dedicated to specific reactions. And of course let specific items in and out. It makes for division of labor on the biochemical level. The membranes we see today are most likely much more complex as multicellularity requires the membrane to be able to receive signals.

The actual role of proteins in enzymatic pathways evolving is much more difficult IMO.

Dude, cool all that crap, ok?


http://www.obsessedwithwrestling.com/pictures/e/evolution/02.jpg

[spurraider21]

I'm starting to think those MasterDesigners were aliens.
what makes you think that, specifically.

and how did those aliens come to be, in your opinion

[Avante]

what makes you think that, specifically.

and how did those aliens come to be, in your opinion

There are just too many things built in ancient times that they could't have built at that time. So how did they do it?

I do think where we humans make our big mistake is thinking everything must have it's beginnings, when when it comes to this that simply isn't true.These aliens have always been there, always.

[spurraider21]

There are just too many things built in ancient times that they could't have built at that time. So how did they do it?
but why alien lifeforms, specifically? why not just a divine being like a god? i'm just curious of how you arrived at aliens, specifically


I do think where we humans make our big mistake is thinking everything must have it's beginnings, when when it comes to this that simply isn't true.These aliens have always been there, always.
but you dont know that about them. heck, you dont even know if they exist at all, let alone if they are eternal.

i mean, its your belief and you're entitled to it, but there's no direct evidence you can provide to support it.

[Avante]

but why alien lifeforms, specifically? why not just a divine being like a god? i'm just curious of how you arrived at aliens, specifically


but you dont know that about them. heck, you dont even know if they exist at all, let alone if they are eternal.

i mean, its your belief and you're entitled to it, but there's no direct evidence you can provide to support it.

Do this if you are really interested in this conversation. Take a few minutes maybe not right now but soon and actually delve into this a bit. I was also skeptical at first, but there are things that simply cannot be explained other than Alien introvention.

If you're too busy or just jacking around, forget it.

[RandomGuy]

Quote Originally Posted by pgardn
Membranes allow you to divide space into functional units that can be dedicated to specific reactions. And of course let specific items in and out. It makes for division of labor on the biochemical level. The membranes we see today are most likely much more complex as multicellularity requires the membrane to be able to receive signals.
The actual role of proteins in enzymatic pathways evolving is much more difficult IMO.


Dude, cool all that crap, ok?


Translation:
http://inspirably.com/uploads/user/7847-im-too-lazy-to-stop-being-lazy_380x280_width.png

[RandomGuy]

If this bullshit was true where are the transitional fossils?

Well, let's first determine what a "transitional fossil" is. Defining terms is an important thing in science, and any attempt to understand any topic.

Easy enough to start with wikipedia:

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.

Basically, for evolution to be true, one should be able to show, generally, how groups of animals changed over time.

This is generally done by using the above noted Law of Superposition.

Evolution, as a workable theory, predicts that if you have a fossil of an animal in any given layer or era, you should be able to dig down to previous layers, and locate the ancestors for that species grouping.

Archaeopteryx being one of the most commonly presented examples. We have modern birds, that we had always suspected came from dinosaurs. Digging down we find a dinosaur with bird-like traits, below any examples of the first birds.

Whales are another good example of how evolution predicts things that we eventually found. Whales, dolphins, and porpoises, are air breathing mammals, relatively recently emerged.

For evolution to be true, we would expect that these animals would have had to come from animals that lived on land. Further, we would know approximately *when* these animals would have to have existed, simply by observing the oldest whale fossils we could find and theorizing that their ancestors came before.

After a lot of research, we finally discovered the first candidates in the early 80's, and in the mid 90's enough other specimens were found for a reasonable consensus about where whales probably came from to emerge:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evograms/paki_ambulo.png

Further reading could be had here:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

[RandomGuy]

Here I will pause, and note a common logical flaw in many peoples reasoning;

Moving the goalposts.

Logical fallacy[edit]

Moving the goalposts, similar to "shifting sands" and also known as raising the bar, is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.[3] The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the end result is changed, too.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

Or if you prefer, a better presented form of this flawed argument here:

M
OVING THE GOALPOSTS
(also known as: gravity game, raising the bar, argument by demanding impossible perfection [form of])

Description: Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied refusing to conceded or accept the opponent’s argument.

Logical Form:

Issue A has been raised, and adequately answered.
Issue B is then raised, and adequately answered.
.....
Issue Z is then raised, and adequately answered.
(despite all issues adequately answered, the opponent refuses to conceded or accept the argument.
Example #1:

Ken: There has to be an objective morality because otherwise terms like “right” and “wrong” would be meaningless, since they have no foundation for comparison.
Rob: The terms “right” and “wrong” are based on cultural norms, which do have a subjective foundation -- one that changes as the moral sphere of the culture changes. The term “heavy” does not have an objective standard, yet we have no problem using that term in a meaningful way. In fact, very few relational terms have any kind of objective foundation.
Ken: But without an objective morality, we would all be lost morally as a race.
Rob: Many would say that we are.
Ken: But how can you say that torturing children for fun is morally acceptable in any situation?
Rob: Personally, I wouldn’t, but you are implying that anything that is not objective must necessarily be seen in all possible ways. A feather may not be seen as “heavy” to anyone, but that doesn’t mean its “lightness” is still not relative to other objects.
Ken: But God is the standard of objective morality. Prove that wrong!
Rob: That I cannot do.
Explanation: Ken starts with a statement explaining why he thinks there has to be an objective morality -- a statement based on a reasonable argument that can be pursued with reason and logic. Rob adequately answers that objection, as indicated by Ken’s move away from that objection to a new objection. This pattern continues until we arrive at an impossible request. Despite all the objections being adequately answered, at no time does Ken concede any points or abandon the argument.

Example #2: Perhaps the most classic example of this fallacy is the argument for the existence of God. Due to understanding of nature through science, many of the arguments that used to be used for God (or gods) were abandoned, only to be replaced with new ones, usually involving questions to which science has not definitively answered yet. The move from creationism to intelligent design is a prime example. Currently the origin of life is a popular argument for God (although a classic argument from ignorance), and an area where we very well may have a scientific answer in the next decade, at which time, the “origin of life” argument will fade away and be replaced by another, thus moving the figurative goalposts farther back as our understanding of the natural world increases.

The common application of this flawed line of reasoning is to insist on the impossible proof that every single transitional form be presented before evolution is "proved".

This is neither feasible, nor required to accept something as true.

Take this series of numbers for example:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, (X), 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, ...

We can deduce what "X" is, even if we don't know with an absolute certainty what comes after 14 in the series, simply by forming a hypothesis that the rule governing the set is "add one to the number on the left".

[RandomGuy]

There are just too many things built in ancient times that they could't have built at that time. So how did they do it?


Examples?

[RandomGuy]

You really do believe that idiocy don't you? So we are actually related to a snail, right?

Genetics.
Phylogeny.

Yes, we are, very distantly.

[RandomGuy]

If this bullshit was true where are the transitional fossils?

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/


Apes - humans
Most ape-like at the top (though in a technical sense, humans are still considered apes). Images and diagrams of the fossils here.

Sometimes called "the only transition which matters", this mustn't be thought of as a transition from chimps to humans, but rather, as a transition from the-common-ancestor-of-chimps-and-humans to humans. Chimps themselves have had time to evolve and change since we parted ways, and so "the ancestor we last shared probably differed substantially from any extant African ape" (White et al, 2009).

Ardipithecus ramidus ~4.4 million years ago
Ardipithecus ramidus had a brain the size of a chimp's, but probably walked upright on the ground, while still able to go on all fours in the trees, where it would find its opposable big toe useful (Gibbons, 2009).
Australopithecus afarensis ~3.6 mya
Australopithecus afarensis was a more advanced walker, with nongrasping feet (White et al, 2009), but it still had the brain size of a chimpanzee (Dawkins, 2009). Probably not a direct ancestor of modern humans (Rak et al, 2007).
Australopithecus africanus ~3 mya
Similar.
Homo habilis ~2 mya?
Homo habilis had a brain about 50% bigger than a chimp's. The fossils are found with a variety of stone tools; this is the earliest human which we're sure used tools (Coyne, 2009).
Homo erectus ~1 mya
A tool-maker, Homo erectus had a brain size of about 1,000 cc, still smaller than our own (Dawkins, 2009).
Homo heidelbergensis ~0.5 mya
Homo heidelbergensis had a brain size approaching our own, and shows a mix of Homo erectus and modern human features (Coyne, 2009).

[RandomGuy]

If this bullshit was true where are the transitional fossils?

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

Fish - tetrapods
Most fish-like at the top. Images and diagrams of the fossils here.

Update: This group of fossils were thought to be roughly contemporary with the transition onto land. However, recently tracks of a four-footed animal were discovered in marine sediments firmly dated at 397 million years old (Niedzwiedzki et al, 2010). If that animal was a genuine tetrapod, then creatures like Tiktaalik may have been "late-surviving relics" exhibiting transitional features that actually evolved somewhat earlier.

In short, these are not the actual ancestors of modern land animals; but they are related to the actual ancestors, and so they do show us the sort of creature that evolved during the great move onto land.

(image) Tetrapods
Eusthenopteron,
Panderichthys,
Tiktaalik
© Nobu Tamura

Eusthenopteron ~385 million years ago
A pelagic fish, Eusthenopteron is probably representative of the group from which tetrapods evolved. It had a tetrapod-like skull and spine (Prothero, 2007).
Panderichthys ~385 mya
Panderichthys had a tetrapod-like braincase and tetrapod-like teeth, and had also lost its dorsal and anal fins (Prothero, 2007).
Tiktaalik ~375 mya
Though still a water-dweller, Tiktaalik had fins that were halfway towards being feet, and ears capable of hearing in air or water (Prothero, 2007). It was capable of crawling around in very shallow water, and it had a neck, unlike fish but like tetrapods (Coyne, 2009).
Ventastega ~365 mya
The bones of Ventastega are intermediate between Tiktaalik and Acanthostega (Ahlberg et al, 2008). Sadly, the fossil is incomplete and we can't see its fins/feet.
Acanthostega ~365 mya
Possessing four definite legs, Acanthostega was presumably capable of movement over land (Coyne, 2009), though the legs were still better suited for crawling along the bottom of the water (Prothero, 2007). Its tail was still adapted for propulsion through water, and it still had gills (Ridley, 2004).
Ichthyostega ~365 mya
Slightly more like a land animal, Ichthyostega had powerful shoulders implying it did indeed use its legs to move over land, at least sometimes (Clack, 2005). Even now, the skull still closely resembled that of Eusthenopteron (Futuyma, 2005).
Pederpes ~350 mya
The foot of Pederpes "has characteristics that distinguish it from the paddle-like feet of the Devonian forms [i.e. the above animals] and resembles the feet of later, more terrestrially adapted Carboniferous forms" (Clack, 2002).
These creatures were related to the lungfish of their time, and almost certainly all had lungs themselves.

It would be a mistake to think that the first tetrapods moving on land needed limbs capable of bearing their full weight; legs sprawled to the side would be enough to move about with. One thing the above fossils seem to show is that legs first evolved for crawling over the bottom of the water; only later did their use on land become paramount.

[RandomGuy]

Dinosaurs - birds
Most dinosaur-like at the top. Images and diagrams of the fossils here.

Anchiornis ~155 million years ago
Although many feathered dinosaurs are known, Anchiornis is the first to be found that probably predates Archaeopteryx. The feathers were "not obviously flight-adapted" (Hu et al, 2009).
Archaeopteryx ~145 mya
The famous Archaeopteryx had feathers and was probably capable of at least gliding, but it also had dinosaur-like teeth, claws, and a long bony tail. Its skeleton was "almost identical to that of some theropod dinosaurs" (Coyne, 2009). Precisely how closely related it is to the main line of bird evolution remains the subject of controversy (Xu et al, 2011).
Confuciusornis ~125 mya
Confuciusornis had a bird-like tail and a pygostyle, which is a feature of modern birds. It retained dinosaur-like claws (Prothero, 2007). It had strong shoulder bones, but was probably not capable of true flapping flight (Senter, 2006). It may have glided. It is the earliest known bird with a toothless beak, but other lineages continued to have teeth for a long time.
Sinornis ~110 mya?
Sinornis "still had teeth, an unfused tarsometatarsus, and an unfused pelvis" (Prothero, 2007) but resembled modern birds in other ways, with reduced vertebrae, a flexible wishbone, a shoulder joint adapted for flying, and hand bones fused into a carpometacarpus (Prothero, 2007).
Vorona ~80 mya?
The legs of Vorona are all that we have (Benton, 2005), but they show a combination of bird characteristics and maniraptoran (dinosaur) characteristics (Forster et al, 1996).
Ichthyornis ~80 mya
A strong flyer, Ichthyornis was very nearly a modern bird (Prothero, 2007), and yet it still had teeth.
As birds evolved from dinosaurs, and required feathers to fly, the existance of non-flying, feathered dinosaurs is a prediction of evolution. Happily, we have now discovered a significant number of such dinosaurs, one of which, Mei long, was even found curled-up in a remarkably bird-like sleeping position (picture here).

The first feathered dinosaurs found were more recent than Archaeopteryx — feathered dinosaurs didn't die out as soon as birds evolved — but we now have Anchiornis, which has shown that feathered dinosaurs did indeed exist before Archaeopteryx.

One will occasionally encounter vague suggestions that birds evolved from (non-dinosaur) reptiles. John Ruben and colleagues are the main supporters of this idea, but it remains very much a minority view. Michael Benton (who literally wrote the book on vertebrate paleontology) considers the controversy artificially extended by the popular media's obsession with giving both sides "equal time", even though the dinosaur-bird view is supported by the vast majority of working palaeontologists (Benton, 2005). The University of California Museum of Paleontology has a reasonable overview of the dinosaur-bird relationship.

[RandomGuy]

Synapsids - mammals
Most synapsid-like at the top. Images and diagrams of the fossils here.

Strictly speaking, the group that gave rise to mammals were not true reptiles (though they were closely related). Therefore, there is no transition from reptiles to mammals, but rather from synapsids to mammals. However, the terms mammal-like reptiles and reptile-like mammals are still sometimes used for these transitional fossils.

Archaeothyris ~305 million years ago
Mostly lizard-like. However Archaeothyris is one of the earliest known synapsids; a group defined by possession of a single temporal fenestra (Ridley, 2004).
Dimetrodon ~280 mya
Dimetrodon had specialised canine teeth (Prothero, 2008) akin to those of modern mammals.
(image) Lycaenops
Lycaenops
© Dmitry Bogdanov

Lycaenops ~260 mya
More mammal-like, especially in how it held its limbs: closer to its body like modern mammals, rather than sprawled to the side like Dimetrodon (Prothero, 2007). It still had a great many "primitive" features, such as ribs in the lumbar area (Prothero, 2007).
Thrinaxodon ~245 mya
Had the beginning of a secondary palate in its skull (Prothero, 2007); in modern mammals, this allows eating and breathing at the same time, and is a sign of a more active lifestyle (Ridley, 2004). Its more advanced skull also allowed it to chew its food; and indeed it had premolars and molars with which to do so (Prothero, 2007). The skeleton was not yet fully mammal-like, but it had lost those lumbar ribs.
Probainognathus ~225 mya?
Probainognathus still possessed a reptile-like jaw articulation (Macdonald et al 2009) but also had "the initiation of the articulation which was later to become the more highly developed glenoid-condyle articulation of the mammal" (Romer, 1969). It had a well developed zygomatic arch (Macdonald et al 2009). However, its braincase was very unlike that of modern mammals (Romer, 1969).
Diarthrognathus ~210 mya?
The fascinating Diarthrognathus had a jaw that contained both the old reptile-like joint as well as the new mammalian joint (Prothero, 2007).
This is merely a small selection of fossils which could be named as transitional synapsids. Wikipedia has an impressive list of therapsids, a subset of the synapsids.

[RandomGuy]

Land mammals - whales and dolphins
Most land-mammal-like at the top. Images and diagrams of the fossils here.

Indohyus ~48 million years ago
Although only a cousin species of the ancestor of whales, Indohyus had bones denser than normal mammals, indicating it was partially aquatic: heavy bones are good ballast (Thewissen et al, 2009). Its ears shared a feature with modern whales: a thickened wall of bone which assists in underwater hearing; non-cetaceans don't have this (Thewissen et al, 2009).
(image) Pakicetus and Ambulocetus
Pakicetus and Ambulocetus
© Sharon Mooney, based on images from National Geographic (see details)

Pakicetus ~52 mya
Perhaps the actual ancestor, Pakicetus was probably semi-aquatic; like Indohyus, it had dense bones for ballast (Thewissen et al, 2009). Its body was "wolf-like" but the skull had eye sockets adapted for looking upwards, presumably at objects floating above it (Thewissen et al, 2009). Although initially known from just a skull, many more bones were found later (Thewissen et al, 2001).
Ambulocetus ~50 mya
With a streamlined, elongated skull and reduced limbs, Ambulocetus probably spent most of its time in shallow water. Its reduced limbs meant it could only waddle on land (Coyne, 2009). It resembled a crocodile in some ways.
Rodhocetus ~45 mya
The nostrils of Rodhocetus have started to move backwards (towards the blowhole position) and the skeleton indicates a much stronger swimmer (Coyne, 2009). On land it would struggle, moving "somewhat like a modern eared seal or sea lion" (Gingerich et al, 2001). Its teeth were simpler than its predecessors (Futuyma, 2005), a trend that continued to the present.
Maiacetus ~47 mya
Seems similar to Rodhocetus. One fossil was found with what appeared to be a foetus, in a position indicating head-first birth (Gingerich et al, 2009) unlike modern whales. However this is disputed; the "foetus" might just be a partially digested meal (Thewissen and McLellan, 2009).
Basilosaurus ~40 mya
The whale-like, fully aquatic Basilosaurus had almost lost its (tiny) hindlimbs, but they had not yet vanished entirely (Prothero, 2007).
Dorudon ~40 mya
Also fully aquatic, Dorudon also had tiny hind limbs, which "barely projected from the body" (Futuyma, 2005).
Aetiocetus ~25 mya
The blowhole in Aetiocetus is about halfway to its position in modern whales on top of the head. Aetiocetus also represents the transition from toothed whales to the filter-feeding baleen whales, being similar to baleen whales in most respects, but possessing teeth (Van Valen, 1968).
(image) Basilosaurus
Basilosaurus © Sharon Mooney, based on an image from National Geographic (see details)

Whales evolved relatively quickly. As Coyne (2009) explains, "adapting to life at sea did not require the evolution of any brand-new features - only modifications of old ones". Thewissen et al (2009) give a good overview of whale evolution, which is freely available.

Beware: There's a commonly reproduced image from a popular science book (Zimmer, 1998) that depicts two dolphin-like creatures, Takracetus and Gaviacetus (always misspelled Gaviocetus) as having short hind limbs. However, the first fossils found were basically skulls plus a few vertebrae (Gingerich et al, 1995), and I've been unable to find any discussion of more complete fossils. Zimmer's book is explicit that some of the depictions are based on very incomplete fossils, so I don't regard that image as authoritative. Happily, we have much better fossils for the species I mention in my list.

[RandomGuy]

Protohorses - horses
Least horse-like at the top. Images and diagrams of the fossils here.

(image) Horse mass graph
Body mass of horse species over time; click for larger; after MacFadden (1986)

With horse evolution, it's particularly important to bear the warning at the top in mind: we have many fossils, and the known family tree is very bushy, not a straight line. At one time, 13 different genera of horses existed simultaneously (Raven et al, 2008). Regardless, there are definite trends over time towards larger body size; larger, ridged teeth suitable for grazing; longer limbs; and reduction of side toes (Raven et al, 2008). These trends were not absolute, however.

Hyracotherium ~60 million years ago
A cousin species of the ancestor of horses. The forelimb of Hyracotherium had four toes (Raven et al, 2008).
Protorohippus ~50 mya
Bigger. The forelimb had four toes.
Mesohippus ~35 mya
Bigger. The forelimb had three toes (Raven et al, 2008).
Miohippus ~35 mya
The skull and snout of Miohippus are becoming more horse-like (Prothero, 2007).
Parahippus ~23 mya
The skeleton of Parahippus was more adapted to long-distance running, for escaping predators in an open environment (Evans, 1992). About this time, grasslands were becoming common in North America, where horses evolved (Raven et al, 2008). They would later die out in America (Dawkins, 2009).
Merychippus ~17 mya
With bigger teeth, Merychippus was more adapted to the grazing lifestyle of modern horses. Earlier species were likely browsers that ate leaves, but Merychippus could also eat grass (Raven et al, 2008).
Pliohippus ~12 mya
Pliohippus still had three toes, but only the central toe touched the ground; the others being too small. This was probably not a direct ancestor of modern horses.
Dinohippus ~5 mya
Some specimens of Dinohippus have three toes; but some have one, like modern horses (Florida Museum of Natural History).
There are a large number of other fossil species that could be mentioned. There are reasonable pages on horse evolution at Tufts University and Wikipedia.

[RandomGuy]

Miscellaneous
A few other transitional fossils of interest. This is, obviously, not a sequence. Images and diagrams of the fossils here.

(image) Eocaecilia
Eocaecilia
© Nobu Tamura

Aardonyx, a proto-sauropod dinosaur that, though bipedal, could probably also walk on all fours (Yates et al, 2009). Contrary to what you might expect, in this case bipeds evolved to become quadrupeds.
Amphistium, an early flatfish, with eyes intermediate in position between an ordinary fish and a modern flatfish (Friedman, 2008).
Claudiosaurus, an early relative of marine reptiles like plesiosaurs, but the limbs are not very specialised for swimming (Prothero, 2007).
Darwinopterus, a pterosaur, has the advanced skull and neck of the Pterodactyloidea group, but other traits (e.g. its long tail) are like the primitive Rhamphorhynchoid group (Lu et al, 2009).
Enaliarctos, an early seal, but with more primitive skull and feet (Prothero, 2007).
Eocaecilia, an early caecilian, but with limbs (Jenkins and Walsh, 1993).
Gerobatrachus, a transitional fossil between frogs and salamanders (Anderson et al, 2008).
Haikouella, perhaps the earliest known chordate (Coyne, 2009).
Najash, an early snake. Had two hind limbs (Apesteguia and Hussam, 2006).
Odontochelys, an early turtle with "half a shell" and a long tail (Dawkins, 2009).
Pezosiren, an early manatee, but with legs rather than flippers (Prothero, 2007).
Protosuchus, a crocodile precursor but "smaller and much more lightly built" than modern crocodiles (Prothero, 2007).
Seymouria, a "mosaic of primitive tetrapod [i.e. amphibian] and advanced amniote [i.e. reptile] characters" (Prothero, 2007).
Sphecomyrma, an early ant, with primitive features (Coyne, 2009).
Triadobatrachus, an early frog, but with more vertebrae, and possessing ribs, which modern frogs don't have (Benton, 2005).

[RandomGuy]

References
Articles behind a paywall are accessible for free from some universities and libraries. In any case, you can usually get at least an abstract.

Ahlberg PE, Clack JA, Luksevics E, Blom H, Zupins I (2008) Ventastega curonica and the origin of tetrapod morphology. Nature 453(7199): 1199–1204 (paywall, figures).
Anderson JS, Reisz RR, Scott D, Frobisch NB, Sumida SS (2008) A stem batrachian from the Early Permian of Texas and the origin of frogs and salamanders. Nature 453(7194): 515-518 (paywall, figures).
Apesteguia S, Hussam Z (2006) A Cretaceous terrestrial snake with robust hindlimbs and a sacrum. Nature 440(7087): 1037-1040 (paywall, figures).
Benton MJ (2005) Vertebrate Palaeontology, 3rd edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Clack JA (2002) An early tetrapod from 'Romer's Gap'. Nature 418(6893): 72-76 (paywall, figures).
Clack JA (2005) Getting a Leg Up on Land. Scientific American 293(6): 100-107 (online).
Coyne JA (2009) Why Evolution is True. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dawkins R (2009) The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. London: Bantam Press.
Evans WE (1992) Horse Breeding and Management. New York: Elsevier Science.
Florida Museum of Natural History (date unknown) Dinohippus (online).
Forster CA, Chiappe LM, Krause DW, Sampson SD (1996) The first Cretaceous bird from Madagascar. Nature 382(6591): 532-534 (paywall).
Friedman M (2008) The evolutionary origin of flatfish asymmetry. Nature 454(7201): 209-212 (paywall, figures).
Futuyma DJ (2005) Evolution. Sunderland: Sinauer.
Gibbons A (2009) A New Kind of Ancestor: Ardipithecus Unveiled. Science 326(5949): 36-40 (free reg required).
Gingerich PD, Arif M, Clyde WC (1995) New Archaeocetes (Mammalia, Cetacea) from the Middle Eocene Domanda formation of the Sulaiman range, Pun Jab (Pakistan). Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, The University of Michigan 29(11): 291-330 (online).
Gingerich PD, Ul-Haq M, Zalmout IS, Khan IH, Malkani MS (2001) Origin of Whales from Early Artiodactyls: Hands and Feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan. Science 293(5538): 2239-2242 (paywall, data).
Gingerich PD, Ul-Haq M, Von Koenigswald W, Sanders WJ, Smith BH, Zalmout IS (2009) New Protocetid Whale from the Middle Eocene of Pakistan: Birth on Land, Precocial Development, and Sexual Dimorphism. PLoS ONE 4(2): e4366 (online).
Hu D, Hou L, Zhang L, Xu X (2009) A pre-Archaeopteryx troodontid theropod from China with long feathers on the metatarsus. Nature 461(7264): 640-643 (paywall, figures).
Jenkins FA, Walsh DM (1993) An Early Jurassic caecilian with limbs. Nature 365(6443): 246-250 (paywall).
Lu J, Unwin DM, Jin X, Liu Y, Ji Q (2009) Evidence for modular evolution in a long-tailed pterosaur with a pterodactyloid skull. Proceedings of the Royal Society B (online).
Macdonald DW (ed.) (2009) The Encyclopedia of Mammals, 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MacFadden BJ (1986) Fossil Horses from "Eohippus" (Hyracotherium) to Equus: Scaling, Cope's Law, and the Evolution of Body Size. Paleobiology 12(4): 355-369 (paywall).
Niedzwiedzki G, Szrek P, Narkiewicz K, Narkiewicz M, Ahlberg PE (2010) Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland. Nature 463(7277): 43-48 (paywall, figures).
Prothero DR (2007) Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. New York: Columbia University Press.
Prothero DR (2008) What missing link? New Scientist 197(2645): 35-41 (paywall).
Rak Y, Ginzburg A, Geffen E (2007) Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(16): 6568-6572 (online).
Raven PH, Johnson GB, Losos JB, Mason KA, Singer SR (2008) Biology, 8th edition. New York: McGraw Hill.
Ridley M (2004) Evolution, 3rd edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Romer AS (1969) Cynodont Reptile with Incipient Mammalian Jaw Articulation. Science 166(3907): 881-882 (paywall).
Senter P (2006) Scapular orientation in theropods and basal birds, and the origin of flapping flight. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 51(2): 305-313 (online).
Thewissen JGM, Williams EM, Roe LJ, Hussain ST (2001) Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls. Nature 413(6853): 277-281 (paywall, figures).
Thewissen JGM, Cooper LN, George JC, Bajpai S (2009) From Land to Water: the Origin of Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises. Evo Edu Outreach 2(2): 272-288 (online).
Thewissen JGM, McLellan WA (2009) Maiacetus: displaced fetus or last meal? PLoS ONE (online).
Van Valen L (1968) Monophyly or Diphyly in the Origin of Whales. Evolution 22(1): 37-41 (paywall).
White TD, Asfaw B, Beyene Y, Haile-Selassie Y, Lovejoy CO, Suwa G, WoldeGabriel G (2009) Ardipithecus ramidus and the Paleobiology of Early Hominids. Science 326(5949): 75-86 (free reg required).
Xu X, You H, Du K Han F (2011) An Archaeopteryx-like theropod from China and the origin of Avialae. Nature 475: 465-470 (paywall).
Yates AM, Bonnan MF, Neveling J, Anusuya C, Blackbeard MG (2009) A new transitional sauropodomorph dinosaur from the Early Jurassic of South Africa and the evolution of sauropod feeding and quadrupedalism. Proceedings of the Royal Society B (online).
Zimmer C (1998) At the Water's Edge: Macroevolution and the Transformation of Life. New York: Free Press.
http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

[RandomGuy]

Or for the really lazy, a youtube showing about hundred of them, in quick succession, two or three per second for most of the short video.

BwBWvVLlC2g

Asked for, and given. Again.

[RandomGuy]

what makes you think that, specifically.

and how did those aliens come to be, in your opinion

He doesn't really have an opinion.

This is another fun meme for the scientifically illiterate to latch on to.


2) The Pyramids of Giza
great-pyramid-cutaway.gif
​ Quite possibly the granddaddy of mysterious places, it all comes down to the basic theory that "nobody knows jack about the pyramids." We don't know why they were built, not sure really what all the chambers in them do (or if we've even found them all), aren't sure what's beneath them (theories say that enormous faces carved aside the pyramids are continually being covered by sand), and we have no idea how the enormous blocks were put in place, especially without mortar.

The blocks themselves were cut, carved, moved, and lifted miles away from the site, and the old problem of weight in building comes into play again; blocks this heavy would have crushed any sleds or tree trunk rollers that Egyptologists think moved them. The theory or slanted ramps is out the window too, as the amount of people needed to push the blocks couldn't have fit on the ramps, and the soil around the pyramid base doesn't show any settling that would have been associated with massive ramps. The juiciest theory? Sonic levitation.

And that doesn't even explain what the interiors were for (Sonic amplifiers? Power plants? Tombs? Storage?), why they align with the stars in Orion's belt, or how the interiors were lit to paint the thousands of hieroglyphics on the walls deep in the pyramids. Torches would have produced soot on the roofs and walls, which is not found in the tomb at all and reflected light on mirrors would have dissipated after only a few feet. The pyramids are a mystery and the worst part? Even with all our modern technologies, we still can't even build a smaller, to-scale replica without ruining our construction equipment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques

Easy enough to explain, and nothing really requires anything special or unavailable to ancient people.

Note that the pattern of claims in the quote very closely mirror that of conspiracy theorists. 1) make a lot of claims without providing evidence or specific examples" 2) fill in the preferred theory

Of course, once one starts examining the specific claims and assertions, they either fall into one of three categories 1)outright false, 2) fact, distorted and misunderstood 3) fact with boring mundane explanation

Again, one simply has to look at the evidence, and the truth usually wins out. Ancient aliens would require a lot more proof of their involvement.

Stone structures are stupid ways of trying to prove aliens. Better way would simply be to look for alloys of metals that were not possible or feasible in the period, or hell, simple trash piles with things that primitive peoples would not have been able to produce.

Show me an aluminum structure from the bronze age, and that might do it. Aluminum was up until recently, more precious than gold, and topped the Washington monument. Look up the smelting process to learn why.

[DisAsTerBot]

He doesn't really have an opinion.

This is another fun meme for the scientifically illiterate to latch on to.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques

Easy enough to explain, and nothing really requires anything special or unavailable to ancient people.

Note that the pattern of claims in the quote very closely mirror that of conspiracy theorists. 1) make a lot of claims without providing evidence or specific examples" 2) fill in the preferred theory

Of course, once one starts examining the specific claims and assertions, they either fall into one of three categories 1)outright false, 2) fact, distorted and misunderstood 3) fact with boring mundane explanation

Again, one simply has to look at the evidence, and the truth usually wins out. Ancient aliens would require a lot more proof of their involvement.

Stone structures are stupid ways of trying to prove aliens. Better way would simply be to look for alloys of metals that were not possible or feasible in the period, or hell, simple trash piles with things that primitive peoples would not have been able to produce.

Show me an aluminum structure from the bronze age, and that might do it. Aluminum was up until recently, more precious than gold, and topped the Washington monument. Look up the smelting process to learn why.

ever read The Giza Power Plant by Christopher Dunn? pretty interesting concept

[Avante]

That above is why I pay no attention to this RandomPunk, cat is an obvious freak.

[Avante]

I'm just now starting to get into...it was Aliens...thing. In the learning process right now.

[ChumpDumper]

Why did aliens give you gill slits and a tail, Avante?

Start melting down, puppet. Be sure to complain about me a lot and pretend you don't read my posts.

[wontstartdumbthreads]

Why did aliens give you gill slits and a tail, Avante?

Start melting down, puppet. Be sure to complain about me a lot and pretend you don't read my posts.

Do you believe there is intelligent life on other planets?

[ChumpDumper]

Do you believe there is intelligent life on other planets?Almost certainly, but they probably have cable so they don't have free time to design life on other planets.

[wontstartdumbthreads]

Almost certainly, but they probably have cable so they don't have free time to design life on other planets.

if they visited earth, why would you think they'd look at us any different than we look at lesser intelligent animals? And experiment on us just the same?

[ChumpDumper]

if they visited earth, why would you think they'd look at us any different than we look at lesser intelligent animals? And experiment on us just the same?Why would they visit earth?

[wontstartdumbthreads]

Why would they visit earth?

the same reason the explorers crossed the oceans or astronauts to the moon.

you know...to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man (or alien) has gone before.

[ChumpDumper]

the same reason the explorers crossed the oceans or astronauts to the moon.

you know...to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man (or alien) has gone before.You're ascribing human traits to aliens that prefer to watch TV.

[wontstartdumbthreads]

You're ascribing human traits to aliens that prefer to watch TV.

curiosity is a trait not exclusive to humans. if you don't feel like you are capable of discussing this, then just go ahead and let me know. instead of the CD revolving wheel of questions and non-sequitur statements.

[ChumpDumper]

curiosity is a trait not exclusive to humans. if you don't feel like you are capable of discussing this, then just go ahead and let me know. instead of the CD revolving wheel of questions and non-sequitur statements.Hey, they're aliens. There is no reason at all to believe they are anything like us.

[wontstartdumbthreads]

Hey, they're aliens. There is no reason at all to believe they are anything like us.

other than the fact that we share their DNA...no reason at all

[ChumpDumper]

other than the fact that we share their DNA...no reason at allThere is no reason to believe that either.

[wontstartdumbthreads]

There is no reason to believe that either.

so you don't believe that intelligent life from other planets has visited Earth?

[ChumpDumper]

so you don't believe that intelligent life from other planets has visited Earth?Probably not.

Space is pretty big.

[wontstartdumbthreads]

Probably not.

Space is pretty big.

Earth was pretty big at one time. You can't imagine an intelligent species figuring out how to travel through space?

[ChumpDumper]

Earth was pretty big at one time. You can't imagine an intelligent species figuring out how to travel through space?Nope. Not that far.

[wontstartdumbthreads]

Nope. Not that far.

LOL. Ok then.

[Blake]

https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/fM8LbOYGereu8hHlqlCoVckgXPM=/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3614950/CLqdeKf.0.0.jpg

[Blake]

http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2c4bda9942b655aaca6ca31716877f29?convert_to_webp=t rue

[wontstartdumbthreads]

so? Space is fucking big. At one point, America was impossible to get to from Europe. Things get figured out.

[Avante]

Total rookie with this, but to believe Alien visitation would explain a lot. Can't really say too much being new at this.

[cantthinkofanything]

Chump believes that there is intelligent life out there. Just not intelligent enough for long distance space travel. Because once you acknowledge that possibility, you can't dismiss the possibility/probability that they (the Aliens) might have fucked around with animals on earth.

[Avante]

Chump believes that there is intelligent life out there. Just not intelligent enough for long distance space travel. Because once you acknowledge that possibility, you can't dismiss the possibility/probability that they (the Aliens) might have fucked around with animals on earth.

I stopped reading that freak long ago.

[Blake]

Total rookie with this, but to believe Alien visitation would explain a lot. Can't really say too much being new at this.

it wouldn't explain anything because the Avante version of the aliens would be asking where life came from just the same.

Probably would be talking galactic blues on a martian messageboard too

[Avante]

it wouldn't explain anything because the Avante version of the aliens would be asking where life came from just the same.

Probably would be talking galactic blues on a martian messageboard too

Galactic blues...hahaha!!!!!!!!!

I'll be damn, ya finally didn't suck.

[spurraider21]

You're ascribing human traits to aliens that prefer to watch TV.
Preferring to watch TV is a human trait

[ChumpDumper]

Preferring to watch TV is a human traitThat was a joke. Aliens like that would be way beyond coax tech.

[pgardn]

Dude, cool all that crap, ok?


http://www.obsessedwithwrestling.com/pictures/e/evolution/02.jpg

Dont read it you dope smoking California fruit cake.
See? Get it ? Ok little fella?

[Avante]

Dont read it you dope smoking California fruit cake.
See? Get it ? Ok little fella?

Don't post in an..AVANTE..thread ya dinkydicked, one nut faggot, ok?

[Blake]

That was a joke. Aliens like that would be way beyond coax tech.

Or satellite dish tech that loses signal when it rains

[Blake]

Don't post in an..AVANTE..thread ya dinkydicked, one nut faggot, ok?

This is an evolution thread

[Avante]

This is an evolution thread

Bored with that silliness.

Now it's an ....are Aliens responsible for all this?

Yep, I;m a rookie to this idea, so be gentle.

[TheQuattro]

This stupid thread brings back memories.

[Avante]

This stupid thread brings back memories.

Don't come in here talking shit ya fucking retard, ok? Nobody wants some obvious dumb fuck running their mouth, got it? Now get the fuck out of here.

[spurraider21]

Bored with that silliness.

Now it's an ....are Aliens responsible for all this?

Yep, I;m a rookie to this idea, so be gentle.
start a thread about aliens and start posting your evidence there

[Avante]

start a thread about aliens and start posting your evidence there


Dude, shut the fuck up, ok? I'll do what I want, got it?

[ChumpDumper]

Dude, shut the fuck up, ok? I'll do what I want, got it?And everyone else will do what they want. Got it?

[Blake]

This is an evolution thread. Always will be.

[ChumpDumper]

This is an evolution thread. Always will be.YouTube list to follow.

[Avante]

This is an evolution thread. Always will be.

Hahahahaha~~~~~~~~~~~~

Little man you're so fucking simple,ha~~~~~~~~~~~

[Blake]

Stay on topic or gtfo

[Avante]

Stay on topic or gtfo

With Monaco coming up tomorrow and the first look at what the USA might run at the Worlds 4x1 relay my focus is there.

I'd love to see....

Mike Rodgers..Justin Gatlin...Tyson Gay..Trayvon Bromell

That Rodgers/Gatlin/Gay combo running on our American record team, only NCAA stud Bromell being new. With his 200m ability meaning he has SE in abundance he'd be perfect in that anchorman role.

With SB's of

Rodgers 9.88
Gatlin 9.74
Gay 9.87
Bromell 9.84

the USA has never ran a faster team, but without slick stick work it won't matter.


So tell me Blake what can that team run?

[cantthinkofanything]

With Monaco coming up tomorrow and the first look at what the USA might run at the Worlds 4x1 relay my focus is there.

I'd love to see....

Mike Rodgers..Justin Gatlin...Tyson Gay..Trayvon Bromell

That Rodgers/Gatlin/Gay combo running on our American record team, only NCAA stud Bromell being new. With his 200m ability meaning he has SE in abundance he'd be perfect in that anchorman role.

With SB's of

Rodgers 9.88
Gatlin 9.74
Gay 9.87
Bromell 9.84

the USA has never ran a faster team, but without slick stick work it won't matter.


So tell me Blake what can that team run?


what happened to Pee Pee the Kidnapper? You never mention him much anymore.

[Avante]

what happened to Pee Pee the Kidnapper? You never mention him much anymore.

That's what w need, some Peanut the Kidnapper.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM0u0gEnBH4

You'd wanna mix him in with Texan......



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxXpTxiip7M

[cantthinkofanything]

That's what w need, some Peanut the Kidnapper.



why was he called that. Peanut the Kidnapper.

[Avante]

why was he called that. Peanut the Kidnapper.

I have 12 big books on them blues.

Those not mentioned in any of them have always intriqued me. The obscure of the obscure.He's one of those. Do some detective work see if you can find that out.

[cantthinkofanything]

I have 12 big books on them blues.

Those not mentioned in any of them have always intriqued me. The obscure of the obscure.He's one of those. Do some detective work see if you can find that out.

I'm on it.

[Avante]

Only of the rarest sights you will ever see,


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V87o_lBv0gc

[Avante]

http://www.obsessedwithwrestling.com/pictures/b/buddyrogers/13.jpg


The one and only, the original "Nature Boy" Buddy Rogers

[wontstartdumbthreads]

what's your favorite dance?

Disco?

yeah...disco here too..

NzLtAz3Dheo

[Blake]

With Monaco coming up tomorrow and the first look at what the USA might run at the Worlds 4x1 relay my focus is there.

I'd love to see....

Mike Rodgers..Justin Gatlin...Tyson Gay..Trayvon Bromell

That Rodgers/Gatlin/Gay combo running on our American record team, only NCAA stud Bromell being new. With his 200m ability meaning he has SE in abundance he'd be perfect in that anchorman role.

With SB's of

Rodgers 9.88
Gatlin 9.74
Gay 9.87
Bromell 9.84

the USA has never ran a faster team, but without slick stick work it won't matter.


So tell me Blake what can that team run?

Evolution in action

[Avante]

Evolution in action

Widden those horizons a bit son, ok? Do others things beside freak out over religion, evolution and a big cock, ok?

[Avante]

I do get a kick out of you little shits, never doubt that, ok? So limited it's cute.

[ChumpDumper]

lol Avante got shit on again.

[Avante]

lol Avante got shit on again.

I couldn't help but read that one being so short and stupid.

What is with this constantly following me around? Do you care at all that I think you are mentally retarded and don't want you around me, it's...YUCK!!!!!!! Dude, what is wrong with you? No really, cool the internet silliness and answer my question, what is wrong with you, well?

[ChumpDumper]

I couldn't help but read that one being so short and stupid.

What is with this constantly following me around? Do you care at all that I think you are mentally retarded and don't want you around me, it's...YUCK!!!!!!! Dude, what is wrong with you? No really, cool the internet silliness and answer my question, what is wrong with you, well?I was just commenting on your being shat upon once more in your own thread.

You're free to melt down about it, but it hardly seems necessary.

[Avante]

I was just commenting on your being shat upon once more in your own thread.

You're free to melt down about it, but it hardly seems necessary.
I'll try again,....

What really is wrong with you guy? You appear to have no self respect at all, none. I really do think you have mental problems, dead serious.

So what is wrong with you?

[ChumpDumper]

I'll try again,....

What really is wrong with you guy? You appear to have no self respect at all, none. I really do think you have mental problems, dead serious.

So what is wrong with you?Truly, I was just commenting on your being shat upon once more in your own thread.

You shouldn't take this message board stuff so seriously.

[mouse]

I really do think you have mental problems, dead serious.

So what is wrong with you?

For starters he still believes he's a result of two apes having sex billions of years ago....even after all the DNA evidence I have presented.


181 pages are any of the Darwin lovers going to finally post some real evidence humans evolved from some warm pools of liquid?


Z6ElA0--JNg

[Avante]

Truly, I was just commenting on your being shat upon once more in your own thread.

You shouldn't take this message board stuff so seriously.

Whatever,

I'll try yet again....

Do you suffer from some handicap, and I'm dead serious? Do you take medication and this isn't silly in hiding internet crap, I really am serious. There is something just not right with you guy really, so what is it you suffer from?

When you come back totally ignoring that all that does is make you look really bad, now answer the question, what is wrong with you?

[Fat boy]

http://www.ubuntudeal.co.za/static/files/pizza_evolution_new.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

Whatever,

I'll try yet again....

Do you suffer from some handicap, and I'm dead serious? Do you take medication and this isn't silly in hiding internet crap, I really am serious. There is something just not right with you guy really, so what is it you suffer from?

When you come back totally ignoring that all that does is make you look really bad, now answer the question, what is wrong with you?Why should I acknowledge such stupid questions?

You are taking the internets way to seriously, tubby.

[spurraider21]

For starters he still believes he's a result of two apes having sex billions of years ago....even after all the DNA evidence I have presented.
you haven't presented any DNA evidence that disproves ape-human genealogy. you keep posting things about how complex DNA is. your argument is squarely against abiogenesis, not evolution

[Avante]

Why should I acknowledge such stupid questions?

You are taking the internets way to seriously, tubby.

Whatever.

So do you take medication, well? There is no doubt and I think everyone would agree you are simply not all there. You do have an obvious problem, so what do you suffer from?

Real talk for once ok guy, drop the internet shit and talk real, what is wrong with you?

[ChumpDumper]

Whatever.

So do you take medication, well? There is no doubt and I think everyone would agree you are simply not all there. You do have an obvious problem, so what do you suffer from?

Real talk for once ok guy, drop the internet shit and talk real, what is wrong with you?Real talk, there is nothing wrong with me.

You're taking the internets way too seriously.

You shouldn't let people get under your skin so badly -- makes you look stupid.

Real talk.

[Avante]

Real talk, there is nothing wrong with me.

You're taking the internets way too seriously.

You shouldn't let people get under your skin so badly -- makes you look stupid.

Real talk.

Whatever

So at what age did you find out you had what ever it is you suffer from? Did you start being medicated then or did that happen later? Nobody in their right mind spends a large portion of their time following others around who totally ignore them, that's retardation. So what form of that do you have?

[ChumpDumper]

Whatever

So at what age did you find out you had what ever it is you suffer from? Did you start being medicated then or did that happen later? Nobody in their right mind spends a large portion of their time following others around who totally ignore them, that's retardation. So what form of that do you have?Why do you say you are ignoring me when you are clearly not ignoring me?

That is a clear sign of a problem with you.

[Avante]

Why do you say you are ignoring me when you are clearly not ignoring me?

That is a clear sign of a problem with you.

I don't like you guy, ok? Nobody does, ok? I don't want you anywhere around me because you have problems. But, being totally fucked up you won't go away. Here you are constantly in mY threads, why? Why follow people around who look at you like they do a pile of shit? Why not have some cool guy instead of acting totally retarded? Am I really this important to you? Now don;t say no because here you always are trying to talk to me so yes I mean a lot to you, but.....WHY?

Dude, if ya had any class at all you'd stop with this...I NEED YOU AVANTE...and move on, ok?

Obviously all of you know I;m working this idiot to get my 200m pages, right? The dumb fuck will not disappoint, watch:king

[ChumpDumper]

I don't like you guy, ok? Nobody does, ok? I don't want you anywhere around me because you have problems. But, being totally fucked up you won't go away. Here you are constantly in mY threads, why? Why follow people arounD who look at you like they do a pilE of shit? Why not have some cool guy instead of acting totally retarded? Am I really this important to you? Now donP;t say no because here you always re trying to talk to me so yes I mean a lot to you, but.....WHY?

Dude, if ya had any class at all you'd stop with this...I NEED YOU AVANTE...and move on, ok?Why do you actively discourage discussion on a discussion board?

[Avante]

Why do you actively discourage discussion on a discussion board?

A 183 page thread and I'm doing what, hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ChumpDumper]

A 183 page thread and I'm doing what, hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!You don't discuss anything though. You actively try to shut any real discussion down, apparently to protect your fragile ego.

[Avante]

You don't discuss anything though. You actively try to shut any real discussion down, apparently to protect your fragile ego.

Ok then, go ahead discuss, you have the floor.

[ChumpDumper]

Ok then, go ahead discuss, you have the floor.
Why did you have gill slits and a long tail?

[Avante]

Why did you have gill slits and a long tail?

My family comes from Avantia, it's taken us years to evolve into these mini gills and tail you see today. My great great great grandfather had it bad.

[ChumpDumper]

My family comes from Avantia, it's taken us years to evolve into these mini gills and tail you see today. My great great great grandfather had it bad.But every human has had gill slits and tails. Why does every human have those when developing?

[Avante]

But every human has had gill slits and tails. Why does every human have those when developing?

We were all fish.

[ChumpDumper]

We were all fish.But you said we weren't.

Which is it -- do you think we evolved from fishlike creatures or not?

[Avante]

But you said we weren't.

Which is it -- do you think we evolved from fishlike creatures or not?

Without a doubt, and it's obvious.

[ChumpDumper]

Without a doubt, and it's obvious.Do you believe humans evolved from fishlike creatures?

Yes or no.

[cantthinkofanything]

So two retards walk into a thread...

[Avante]

Do you believe humans evolved from fishlike creatures?

Yes or no.

Absolutely, no doubt about it.

[Avante]

So two retards walk into a thread...

So two retards
walk into a thread
one was named Julio
the other named Fred

they were bored
didn't have much to do
so they read a page
or two

they were mesmerized
at what they read
they didn't know Avante
had all these faggots
giving him head

there was Blake
Chumpstupid and CN
little spurwhatever
and Avante with a big grin

[cantthinkofanything]

So two retards
walk into a thread
one was named Julio
the other named Fred

they were bored
didn't have much to do
so they read a page
or two

they were mesmerized
at what they read
they didn't know Avante
had all these faggots
giving him head

there was Blake
Chumpstupid and CN
little spurwhatever
and Avante with a big grin

There once was a retard, name of chump
Other men's asses, he liked to hump

That's all I got right now

[Avante]

There once was a retard, name of chump
Other men's asses, he liked to hump

That's all I got right now

there once was this retard
name of chump
other men's asses
he liked to hump

he did it with zeal
he did it with glee
he'd love to do it
to you and me

fuckers a fag
sick as shit
too bad we canit blow
this asshole away
get rid of it

The really sad thing with this freak is he'll read this and it's..."they can't ignore me:toast" totally ignoring the fact that when you follow everyone around like he does they will stop every once in awhile to kick ya in the nuts. The fucker is annoying and if you tell him that he just ignores ya and keeps on humping away. Damn what a sick fuck he's almost as bad as Blake.

[cantthinkofanything]

there once was this retard
name of chump
other men's asses
he liked to hump

he did it with zeal
he did it with glee
he'd love to do it
to you and me

fuckers a fag
sick as shit
too bad we canit blow
this asshole away
get rid of it

The really sad thing with this freak is he'll read this and it's..."they can't ignore me:toast" totally ignoring the fact that when you follow everyone around like he does they will stop every once in awhile to kick ya in the nuts. The fucker is annoying and if you tell him that he just ignores ya and keeps on humping away. Damn what a sick fuck he's almost as bad as Blake.

That was lol. But you always screw up the meter. Is it on purpose?

[Avante]

That was lol. But you always screw up the meter. Is it on purpose?

I've won a half dozen or so poetry contests. Did a poem a week in our school paper. Had poems read in class by creative writing teaches being the only poem they read. So I know I'm good. Nobody has ever said a word about meter so.........

[cantthinkofanything]

I've won a half dozen or so poetry contests. Did a poem a week in our school paper. Had poems read in class by creative writing teaches being the only poem they read. So I know I'm good. Nobody has ever said a word about meter so.........

I don't know then. It's awful sometimes what you do. Maybe I'm not reading it right in my head.

[Avante]

I don't know then. It's awful sometimes what you do. Maybe I'm not reading it right in my head.

Of course it is this is the internet. That's the game that MUST be played. A guy brags a little, shows off and you/me/everyone...MUST...you're fat/that sucked!/you spelled this wrong/you're not so smart. That's how it has to be, I know this. I've posted a poem here that..."that was bad"...then posted the same poem other places and it was..."that was great"....and so it goes.

I've been writing poetry since I was a little kid, had some published then asked for more. I'm not going pay much attention to some..."I fucked your mom"...on a messageboard.

[ChumpDumper]

Of course it is this is the internet. That's the game that MUST be played. A guy brags a little, shows off and you/me/everyone...MUST...you're fat/that sucked!/you spelled this wrong/you're not so smart. That's how it has to be, I know this. I've posted a poem here that..."that was bad"...then posted the same poem other places and it was..."that was great"....and so it goes.

I've been writing poetry since I was a little kid, had some published then asked for more. I'm not going pay much attention to some..."I fucked your mom"...on a messageboard.But your "poem" is basically the same thing as saying "I fucked your mom."

Do you really think anything you posted here would be published by a company that would pay you American money?

[Avante]

But your "poem" is basically the same thing as saying "I fucked your mom."

Do you really think anything you posted here would be published by a company that would pay you American money?

Give me a topic little guy.

[ChumpDumper]

Give me a topic little guy.I gave you the topic. I asked you a question.

Just answer it.

[Avante]

I gave you the topic. I asked you a question.

Just answer it.

I was asked a question
not long ago
about a girl
I used to know

her name was Rosa
but we all called her Sue
why we did
nobody knew

she was tall
about 6 foot 3
big blue eyes
as fine as could be

Now finish it for me stupid.

[ChumpDumper]

I was asked a question
not long ago
about a girl
I used to know

her name was Rosa
but we all called her Sue
why we did
nobody knew

she was tall
about 6 foot 3
big blue eyes
as fine as could be

Now finish it for me stupid.Answer the question, stupid.

[Avante]

Answer the question, stupid.

the boy was stupid
dumb as could be
and he was short
stood 5 foot 3

we called him Chump
then would laugh in his face
he was a clown
a total disgrace

he'd follow us up town
down town too
we couldn't get rid of him
no matter what we'd do

he was an embasshment
ugly and fat
but no matter where we were
there he was at

he was lonely
it was plain to see
that's why he hangs around
you and me

[Avante]

This is the problem with this freak. All of you can see me trolling this idiot and...HE JUST KEEPS COMING BACK.

What really is this, bipolar? Or simply stupid"

Here he is again, hahahaha!!!!!!!!!

[Avante]

I'l be damn, where did he go? Something must have happened, he always comes back, always! Hopefully an earthquake or a tornado, or an alien abduction, of course they'd bring the faggot back, they wouldn't want him around either.

"Jukebox"

it set in the corner
brand spankin' new
for just a buck
it'd play any song
you wanted it to

it was a jukebox
in a little bar
my favorite artist
was Johnny Guitar

many nights
I'd get drunk
listening to
them blues
and funk

then one night
it was gone
nowhere in the bar
no more blues or funk
no more Johnny Guitar




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5Imdr7_6PQ

[Infinite_limit]

http://s28.postimg.org/sbm9q6ui5/image.jpg

[Infinite_limit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAbfPDZdEBU

[mouse]

This is the problem with this freak. All of you can see me trolling this idiot
!!!!

Ask yourself whos really TRolling who,

Don't forget this is Chump he can be two posts ahead of you before you ever reply.

you really think he believes in Darwin?

Chumps been TRolling us all

[Avante]

Ask yourself whos really TRolling who,

Don't forget this is Chump he can be two posts ahead of you before you ever reply.

you really think he believes in Darwin?

Chumps been TRolling us all

I've told the freak numerous times to leave me alone..GO AWAY!!!!!!!!! now what is he going to do? Yep, the total opposite and he does, he actually stalks me and I expect it.

This is the game I play the boy...

I tell him...you're on ignore, but..have every intention of once every month or so I do respond, this gets him thinking..."will he talk to me this time?".....hahaha!!!!!!! Yep, when ya deal with the obviously mentally retarded that's the things you do.

Anyone who follows people around begging for attention shouldn't be doing this, it really is sad to watch.

[ChumpDumper]

lol Avante trying to ratinoalize his complete lack of self-control.

:cry I meant to tell him to go away and that I would ignore him forever and then post to him 15 minutes later! can't you see the genius of it all? Love me! :cry

[Avante]

lol Avante trying to ratinoalize his complete lack of self-control.

:cry I meant to tell him to go away and that I would ignore him forever and then post to him 15 minutes later! can't you see the genius of it all? Love me! :cry

Actually it's Avante casting a spell over some internet weirdo who needs me in the worst way. Why am I so damn important to you? I could understand it if ya saw these 275 pounds of twisted railroad steel and my magic dimples but since ya can't...???

I'm trying to get 200 pages what better way than to toss this fuck a bone?

[ChumpDumper]

Actually it's Avante casting a spell over some internet weirdo who needs me in the worst way. Why am I so damn important to you? I could understand if ya saw these 275 pounds of twisted railroad steel and my magic dimples but since ya can't...???You're fat.

Just more proof you have no self control.

[Avante]

You're fat.

Just more proof you have no self control.

Now think.

I'm into sprinting and football, bodybuilding. Can talk those athletes on a level nobody else can, nobody!!!!!! Now how many fat fucks are into things they could never do? I was a sprinter, running back and have been lifting since I was 15. Are you really this fucking stupid, you really can't figure our simple logic?

[ChumpDumper]

Now think.

I'm into sprinting and football, bodybuilding. Can talk those athletes on a level nobody else can, nobody!!!!!! Now how many fat fucks are into things they could never do? I was a sprinter, running back and have been lifting since I was 15. Are you really this fucking stupid, you really can't figure our simple logic?Plenty of almanac readers are fat.

[Avante]

Plenty of almanac readers are fat.

So here's this cat who has been fat all his life reading up on Dallas Baptists 9.2man Francus Baldwin. He can ramble off every sprinter who ever ran on a national level, he can talk Bernie Wefers and Lon Myers who ran back prior to 1900. He can also talk "Squirmin' " Sherman Lewis and Rufus "The Roadrunner" Ferguson two BIG10 stud running backs once upon a time. Actually this fat fuck knows more than anybody about this stuff.....WHY???????????????

[ChumpDumper]

So here's this cat who has been fat all his life reading up on Dallas Baptists 9.2man Francus Baldwin. He can ramble off every sprinter who ever ran on a national level, he can talk Bernie Wefers and Lon Myers who ran back prior to 1900. He can also talk "Squirmin' " Sherman Lewis and Rufus "The Roadrunner" Ferguson two BIG10 stud running backs once upon a time. Actually this fat fuck knows more than anybody about this stuff.....WHY???????????????Any fat dude can read almanacs. Why are you so sensitive about being fat?

[Avante]

Any fat dude can read almanacs. Why are you so sensitive about being fat?

Let me slow it down for ya amigo.

What fat fuck.....CARES...about things he could never do? What fat guy can take you back to the very origins of world class sprinting, bobybuilding and football?

So here's Tubby spending all this time reading about sprinters, footballers, Sergio Olivia, Eugene Sandow, Bill Pearl, Larry Scott, Steve Reeves, Reg Parks....you really believe that?

[ChumpDumper]

Let me slow it down for ya amigo.

What fat fuck.....CARES...about things he could never do? What fat guy can take you back to the very origins of world class sprinting, bobybuilding and football?

So here's Tubby spending all this time reading about sprinters, footballers, Sergio Olivia, Eugene Sandow, Bill Pearl, Larry Scott, Steve Reeves, Reg Parks....you really believe that?Fat people care a lot about sports. It how professional sports can be a thing, chubs. Fat people like you.

[Avante]

Fat people care a lot about sports. It how professional sports can be a thing, chubs. Fat people like you.

I was going to troll this idiot to get closer to my 200 page goal but he's simply too damn stupid. Look at this freak actually thinking fat guys can talk sprinting, are you kidding me? No they can't.

Now watch this, here ..it...comes again, that is how great I am at trolling.

[ChumpDumper]

I was going to troll this idiot to get closer to my 200 page goal but he's simply too damn stupid. Look at this freak actually thinking fat guys can talk sprinting, are you kidding me? No they can't.

Now watch this, here ..it...comes again, that is how great I am at trolling.Why can't fat guys talk about sprinting?

All they have to do is read an almanac or two.

Now watch fatty get defensive about his weight again.

[Avante]

Even I have to pity the guy, this really is sad to watch.

I'm guessing he was raised by a widowed grandma, his parents dumping him on her. He grew up around old women and a faggot cousin. They;d sneak off behind the farm and gives each other blow jobs. Obviously Chump blowing the longest and the hardest.

Granny dressed the boy funky, so everywhere he went he was laughed at and called ....cock sucker...his cousin had a big mouth (which Chump loved). So he grew up pretty fucked up.

His cousins name was Avante, so I remind him of those days of ridicule and cock sucking. Yep, I;m stuck with this freak.

[ChumpDumper]

lol Chubby getting angry and posting sex fantasies about children.

Again.

You should really ease up on the child sex imagery, tubbs. Looks like you spend at least as much time boning up on that as you do lane assignments for black men.

[Avante]

lol Chubby getting angry and posting sex fantasies about children.

Again.

You should really ease up on the child sex imagery, tubbs. Looks like you spend at least as much time boning up on that as you do lane assignments for black men.

As we can see that was an obviously painful experience in..its...life. Being dumped by your parents because you looked weird, having an old lady calling you Chump, and a cock sucking cousin. Not hard to see why this boy is so fucked up. I'm almost on the verge of treating him nice and sweet, I do have compassion ya know.

[ChumpDumper]

As we can see that was an obviously painful experience in..its...life. Being dumped by your parents because you looked weird, having an old lady calling you Chump, and a cock sucking cousin. Not hard to see why this boy is so fucked up. I'm almost on the verge of treating him nice and sweet, I do have compassion ya know.You have a reprehensible sexual interest in children.

You really want to be known for that.

[Avante]

You have a reprehensible sexual interest in children.

You really want to be known for that.

I once talked about watching a tv show about the sex slave thing over in those Asian countries. How some were just children. I talked about how fucked up that was and how it bugged me thinking about how I was in that world back in the early 70's. And why we weren't warned about it and how we should have been. I talked about how sick that was and how any man could go that route with children.

Now being we have a lot of posters here like you who have..0...brain power that got turned into I was a pedo, yep as strange as that is. I have said this many times, if any made touchs a child in that way you blow that fuckers brains out.

Now here's what you're going to do and I gurantee it. You will totally ignore my stance on this and act retarded about it.

[ChumpDumper]

I once talked about watching a tv show about the sex slave thing over in those Asian countries. How some were just children. I talked about how fucked up that was and how it bugged me thinking about how I was in that world back in the early 70's. And why we weren't warned about it and how we should have been. I talked about how sick that was and how any man could go that route with children.

Now being we have a lot of posters here like you who have..0...brain power that got turned into I was a pedo, yep as strange as that is. I have said this many times, if any made touchs a child in that way you blow that fuckers brains out.

Now here's what you're going to do and I gurantee it. You will totally ignore my stance on this and act retarded about it.You said you are against it, but then you proceed to post pedophile fan fiction because you think it's funny.

Now here's what you're going to do and I guarantee it. You will further attempt to rationalize your past and present behavior regarding the sexual exploitation of children -- but nothing will change what you have already done.

[Avante]

You said you are against it, but then you proceed to post pedophile fan fiction because you think it's funny.

Now here's what you're going to do and I guarantee it. You will further attempt to rationalize your past and present behavior regarding the sexual exploitation of children -- but nothing will change what you have already done.

When I encounter a genuine freak like you are on messageboard, I mess with them, like I do you. Look at yourself, you're a mess and we all have to put up with you. I'm only talking to you now to bump up my pages and you know this and here you....STILL...are. Dude, what is wrong with you? You do have problems guy but until I get my 200 pages I'll string you along and you will be here and we both know it.

For those of you reading this.

I'm thinking the same thing you are, yes it's very sad. Mental retardation and the internet, not good.

[ChumpDumper]

When I encounter a genuine freak like you are on messageboard, I mess with them, like I do you. Look at yourself, you're a mess and we all have to put up with you. I'm only talking to you now to bump up my pages and you know this and here you....STILL...are. Dude, what is wrong with you? You do have problems guy but until I get my 200 pages I'll string you along and you will be here and we both know it.

For those of you reading this.

I'm thinking the same thing you are, yes it's very sad. Mental retardation and the internet, not good.Don't try to tell other people what to think. Other people don't think about children the way you do.

What is wrong with you, freak?

[Avante]

Don't try to tell other people what to think. Other people don't think about children the way you do.

What is wrong with you, freak?

Not going to work slick only a retard like you wouldn't get my stance on mutherfucking sick ass pedos. You blow the sick fucks away. Don't act even more stupid, ok? Let it go.

Dude, why are you so obsessed with Avante? Really, why do you need me soooooooooooooooooo damn bad? Answer the question.

[ChumpDumper]

Not going to work slick only a retard like you wouldn't get my stance on mutherfucking sick ass pedos. You blow the sick fucks away. Don't act even more stupid, ok? Let it go.

Dude, why are you so obsessed with Avante? Really, why do you need me soooooooooooooooooo damn bad? Answer the question.After you answer why you think child sex abuse is so funny to post about on the internet, freak.

Answer the question.

[Avante]

After you answer why you think child sex abuse is so funny to post about on the internet, freak.

Answer the question.

All this time and you haven't learned a damn thing, wow~~~~~~~ When I ask a retard like you a question there will be no more talk until I get an answer. You get one more chance freak,I get a real/legit answer or you are a history and ya know how badly you need me so think it over.

Now give me my answer now, you got that?

[ChumpDumper]

All this time and you haven't learned a damn thing, wow~~~~~~~ When I ask a retard like you a question there will be no more talk until I get an answer. You get one more chance freak,I get a real/legit answer or you are a history and ya know how badly you need me so think it over.

Now give me my answer now, you got that?Sorry, Chubbs. There is a whole backlog of questions you refused to answer. You owe me.

Now either answer my question or through one of your little fat girl tantrums again where you vow never to talk to me again, then post to me again in 15 minutes.

You're fat.

[Avante]

Sorry, Chubbs. There is a whole backlog of questions you refused to answer. You owe me.

Now either answer my question or through one of your little fat girl tantrums again where you vow never to talk to me again, then post to me again in 15 minutes.

You're fat.

You done fucked up little fella.

Ok this is how it's going to go and I guarantee it. I'm done with you again simply because you're obvously mentally retarded. But that won;t stop you, being a retard you will...STILL..follow me around, which is something only a retard would do.

See ya after football season when I need somebody to kick around.

Bye~~~~~

[ChumpDumper]

You done fucked up little fella.

Ok this is how it's going to go and I guarantee it. I'm done with you again simply because you're obvously mentally retarded. But that won;t stop you, being a retard you will...STILL..follow me around, which is something only a retard would do.

See ya after football season when I need somebody to kick around.

Bye~~~~~See you in a few minutes. You'll start by talking about me in the third person and acting like you aren't reading what I post, but it will be painfully obvious.

You have no self control.

[Avante]

I know, I know, the thought of space men and aliens and all that gets a..hahahaha!!!!!!!! ..YEAH RIGHT!

But....

If ya really delve into it as I am now doing it really does make sense. Now before ya brush it off with that...hahahaha what a fucking idiot......how about doing a little research.

I am just a rookie at this can't put up much of a fight right now,

[mouse]

I'm trying to get 200 pages what better way than to toss this fuck a bone?


:lmao

[Blake]

See ya after football season when I need somebody to kick around.

Bye~~~~~

i can't decide which is dumber:

You believing that aliens have visited or you believing you're kicking anyone around in this thread

[Avante]

i can't decide which is dumber:

You believing that aliens have visited or you believing you're kicking anyone around in this thread

Trust me amigo when a guy spends a huge% of his time humping your leg you are kicking him around. Now watch how sometime today he returns to be kicked around some more. But my leg is tired.

Now....

Yes and yes once upon a time I was with you and most people with....Aliens are you crazy, ha~~~~~ Then I started watching this tv show....Ancient Aliens. Ya know, how did ancient man build all that stuff?

[ChumpDumper]

Trust me amigo when a guy spends a huge% of his time humping your leg you are kicking him around. Now watch how sometime today he returns to be kicked around some more. But my leg is tired.

Now....

Yes and yes once upon a time I was with you and most people with....Aliens are you crazy, ha~~~~~ Then I started watching this tv show....Ancient Aliens. Ya know, how did ancient man build all that stuff?lol you gullible central Cali rube.

You can start responding to me directly after whining in the third person awhile.

And you're fat.

[Blake]

Trust me amigo when a guy spends a huge% of his time humping your leg you are kicking him around. Now watch how sometime today he returns to be kicked around some more. But my leg is tired.

Now....

Yes and yes once upon a time I was with you and most people with....Aliens are you crazy, ha~~~~~ Then I started watching this tv show....Ancient Aliens. Ya know, how did ancient man build all that stuff?

BwaaaaaaahahaaaAhhhhhaa you bought into that show?

You're even dumber and less intelligent than I thought. Lololol you are so incredibly retarded. Just very very stupid. Roflll too funny.

[Avante]

BwaaaaaaahahaaaAhhhhhaa you bought into that show?

You're even dumber and less intelligent than I thought. Lololol you are so incredibly retarded. Just very very stupid. Roflll too funny.

Not at first, I was like you.....BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!...then it started making sense. How did they get 50 ton rocks over here, how did they cut stone like that with the tools they didn't have?

How did they build the pyramids?

Do you know? Blake, I have fun with silly internet shit like you do but how about we drop all that stupid shit and actually kick this around can ya do it?

[ChumpDumper]

Not at first, I was like you.....BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!...then it started making sense. How did they get 50 ton rocks over herePulling them over wet sand.
how did they cut stone like that with the tools they didn't have?They had tools to cut limestone.

[ChumpDumper]

Not at first, I was like you.....BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!...then it started making sense. How did they get 50 ton rocks over here, how did they cut stone like that with the tools they didn't have?

How did they build the pyramids?

Do you know? Blake, I have fun with silly internet shit like you do but how about we drop all that stupid shit and actually kick this around can ya do it?If only the hyper-advanced aliens left pictures of themselves moving huge rocks.

Oh wait....someone else did:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UByQPHNyqyk/hqdefault.jpg

[Avante]

Hey Blake...

http://beforeitsnews.com/paranormal/2012/07/nasa-scientists-and-astronauts-tell-the-world-aliens-do-exist-update-2

[ChumpDumper]

Hey Blake...

http://beforeitsnews.com/paranormal/2012/07/nasa-scientists-and-astronauts-tell-the-world-aliens-do-exist-update-2Hey Avante....

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UByQPHNyqyk/hqdefault.jpg

[mouse]

BwaaaaaaahahaaaAhhhhhaa you bought into that show?

Roflll too funny.



I have to Side with Blake on this one.

check out this non bias Documentary Avante.

j9w-i5oZqaQ

[Avante]

Well if I hadn't seen a flying saucer myself back in my navy days I wouldn't be so gullible. And there have been a lot of people in high places coming clean on what they know about it.

To think we are the only ones is pretty naive.

[spurraider21]

well at least we can officially confirm the "avante is a delusional quack" thing