Reply With Quote
We need a Mouse Wiki.
Why do you keep switching screen names? Are you that ashamed of your "mouse" moniker?
We need a Mouse Wiki.
Where did I post I am a creationist?Evolutionists don't post proof... this coming from a creationist? LMFAO
That's called sex, it's what two dogs did for you to be here laughing.Actually, love doesn't require a soul. It requires biology, i.e., a brain and a penis.
Love involves feelings. Something you never learned about bouncing around from orphanages to halfway houses all your life.
I am not sorry to have to bring up your past,you deserve to learn the truth.Sorry to have to be the one to break it to you.
once again avoid evolution debate and don't post any proof your fitting right in brah!
There is plenty of "proof" in the thread. You just choose to keep ignoring it.
once again work on avoiding the evolution debate, and never post any proof we evolved from snails. your fitting right in brah!
Did you know Kori and Lj the folks that run this site that allows you to be an ass 24/7 have many other screen names also. are you saying they are ashamed also?
heads up brah! screen name smack is a lame as spelling smack it went out with "da bomb!" back in 1999.
I won't lie to you if there ever was a screen named that I would be ashamed to use it would be Shastafarian
dude your kicking your own ass and can't even feel it keep posting your making my job that much easier.
Once again another response to this topic with no proof man evolve from the snail.
maybe I missed it.
quote? link? how about you post your own proof? come on!...you know,...for s and giggles!
humor us with your knowledge.
once again another response to this debate with no proof man evolve from snails
You still don't get it. Feelings are a biological process.
Then how does it feel to have mouse's biological foot up your biological ass?
A couple things about mutations:
The majority of mutations are fatal.
The majority of the mutations that aren't fatal have been found not to "add" new genes, but simply to slightly alter the expression of existing genes.
There was a scientist studying thumbs in humans and chimpanzees. Just thumbs, nothing else.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=94290404
He isolated the genes for thumb development in humans and chimps and discovered, lo and behold that humans and chimps have the same genes for thumb development, but the only difference was when the development turned on and off, i.e. in humans the genes for developing the thumb are just turned on for slightly longer than the chimps.
No real information has to be added, all one has to do is simply move the on/off switches a few thousand rungs down the DNA ladder.
It does seem that viruses can inject DNA into host organisms, as many higher mammals have readily identifiable strings of "junk" DNA from past viral infections.
So one doesn't really need for mutations to "add" genes for animals to change over time.
One also has to remember that bacteria change so quickly because they reproduce so quickly. Animals with longer cycles of fucundity (ability to produce offspring) change/adapt/evolve at a rate consistant with how long that cycle is.
If the principle holds true for bacteria, it must, by logical extension, hold true for larger organisms.
Did you expect any different?
There will always be people who will refuse to use the intellect that God has blessed them with...
Evolutionists
I see what you did there....
yet another post wasted in this topic that does not prove man evolved from snails
The thing that really brings the nature of mutations to light is the bacterial flagellum.
Turns out that part of a bacterial cell is simply a whole lot of other parts thrown together in a new way. If you break the gene for a flagellum down, the entire thing can be broken into about 6 or 7 fully functional parts of previously existing bacterial structures.
The only thing that "mutated" to create it was that the genes were lumped together and expressed differently.
I am a stinker that way.
I will try not to tell that to my lesbian neighbors...
what stinks is 19 pages and.......I am a stinker that way.
yet another post in this Evolution topic that does not prove man evolved from snail!
By the by... humans didn't evolve from snails, either.
The branch of life that went off to eventually produce humans split off from the branch that produced snails a loooooooooong time ago.
That is simply yet another bit of wrong information about evolutionary theory. Funny how creationists constantly have to lie about what evolutionary theory is/says to feel they have made their case.
Oh RandomLie is on a roll!I will try not to tell that to my lesbian neighbors...
yet another post in this Evolution topic that does not prove man evolved from snails!
yet another post in this Evolution topic that does not prove man evolved from .....fill in the blank __________________
Then why is is still being taught and in the text books?
yet another post in this Evolution topic that does not prove man evolved from fill in the blank_____________
We'll need a link to the textbook that states humans evolved from snails.
Along with some evidence to prove your "AD" theory.
Case in point.
Just because something first emerged a long time ago... doesn't mean that it has to be extinct today. Sharks are a good example, roaches another.
If a form has a niche and favorable charactoristics, it wills survive.
Where would we be if phytoplankton or primitive algae were extinct?
Man evolved from an ancestor that evolved from another ancestor and so forth.
Please don't expect me to work too hard trying to "prove" evolution in one post, or even to try to prove it to you specifically.
You will not believe anything outside your own dogmatic belief system, no matter how compelling or logical.
The only thing to be shown at this point is whether or not you will admit it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
