A big-bang theory gets a big boost: Evidence that vast cosmos was created in split second
Options
Comments
-
Mobile post
Evolution decided not to cover the land in water..you evolution ? do know that the earth is made up of more water than land..so if we look at this concept
The land that we dwell on should be covered in water..
we wasn't here with the animals to create banks or such so how it that the oceans and rivers and seas didn't flood earth until the great flood
I'll bring it closer to home for you ? ..go get a cup of water and fill it up almost to the top. .tear about 7 to 9 pieces of paper and shake the cup around and see if all parts of those paper get wet..how is it that the water controls itself from not basically drowning all of us back then..When man was first created or. Better yet when the animals were just here -
This guy is so stupid I can't stop loling
-
I gave you Lol's for charity brotha. ROFL
-
You have rivers leading up to one another pouring into the Mississippi River, oh I guess that was all evolution doing that...evolution connected the dots huh Lol...of ALL the rivers in the world, some to funnel into another lol...
Nigeria Falls was created by Evolution...So Evolution decided to create one Nigeria Falls and keep it flowing constantly like how it's doing, (in an orderly fashion) So Evolution is now ORDER and have patterns now?? LOL...yea ok
Even a 3rd grader can tell and see the ? you ? stand out is dumb as ? ...? just gotta throw out simple plain things for you evolution ? to understand that your platform is stupid and dumb..you ? need to use your brain folk...
-
Keep your charity folk..I"m good...I'd rather you troll me, like the folk Zombie doing...let's me know I'm jamming his ass up...I'mma keep my foot on that ? neck..
-
There are some non-believers out here..so the dumb ? you ? spitting don't bother me, that's suppose to happen...*shruggs* but I tell you what, You bring in a neutral person or kids and let them read this thread, and see how yall ? can't answer the most simplest things, they'll find out you ? stance is dumb lol...smh..
-
we got devils outchere ? . You'll drive yourself crazy tryna save em, they don't want the truth
They rather their ancestors to be monkeys.. which makes them self proclaimed monkeys -
lulz
-
yo....is this ? saying water & rocks are products of evolution? lmfaooo
-
atribecalledgabi wrote: »yo....is this ? saying water & rocks are products of evolution? lmfaooo
That's why I'm done here.
@Oceanic
@zombie
Someone else please debate and get three more pages in for a ? for that double platinum thread. -
man you been done and didn't provide nothing but Youtube clips of stanky ass monkeys beating down rocks and a bunch text that you thought sounded so deep lol...told you ? if you can't explain it to a 5th grader or an 60 year old, then you needs to get off that soapbox you're standing on...you looking weak...
-
Lol.. Dudes brain is in overdrive.
Don't hurt yourself, bro -
EmperorRises wrote: »atribecalledgabi wrote: »yo....is this ? saying water & rocks are products of evolution? lmfaooo
That's why I'm done here.
@Oceanic
@zombie
Someone else please debate and get three more pages in for a ? for that double platinum thread.
? i look like your personal platinum thread creator. -
Other apes and Monkeys are more like humans then people think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSm7BcQHWXk&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4kMJzdtuxY -
EmperorRises wrote: »atribecalledgabi wrote: »yo....is this ? saying water & rocks are products of evolution? lmfaooo
That's why I'm done here.
@Oceanic
@zombie
Someone else please debate and get three more pages in for a ? for that double platinum thread.
I ain't trying to argue with this man. He don't understand ? you tell him. -
Knock_Twice wrote: »man you been done and didn't provide nothing but Youtube clips of stanky ass monkeys beating down rocks and a bunch text that you thought sounded so deep lol...told you ? if you can't explain it to a 5th grader or an 60 year old, then you needs to get off that soapbox you're standing on...you looking weak...
Species do not jump from one to the next within a generation. In simpler terms a clown fish does not just give birth to a flounder fish. It happens slowly over time. Just like when two humans come together and have children that have different genetics than their parents so do other animals. The genetics your kids have is random to an extent but is heavily influenced by the genes its parents have. The genes that are most useful to an animal are the ones that get passed on while genes that hurt an animal's chances of survival and reproduction do not get passed on because that animal either dies or it does not get to have kids.
Over a long period of time the genetics of an entire group of animals can change because some genes might be better than others. A famous example is the grey moths in England during the industrial revolution that were able to blend in with the soot covered foliage and avoid getting eaten. This started out as a mutation that very few moths had but because it was effective at preventing them from getting eaten it became common. This is just one change and does not mean another species was created. In order for a new species to be created an animal has to be dissimilar to another to the point of being unable to reproduce with it. In simpler terms their genetics need to be so completely different that they cannot biologically have kids together and produce offspring that are also capable of having kids. Some animals are similar enough to reproduce together, such as mules and horses, but their offspring are impotent.
When you think of evolution you have to think of it as having occurred over hundreds of thousands of years. If you cannot let go of ideas that the earth is only 6,000 years old then even simple explanations like the above will not make sense to you. -
Just smh @ folks clinging to their monkey heritage for dear life. Absolutely disgusting. Folks is really holding their head high declaring their monkey heriatage? My how far we truly fell since the garden of Eden. Tragic.
-
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »Just smh @ folks clinging to their monkey heritage for dear life. Absolutely disgusting. Folks is really holding their head high declaring their monkey heriatage? My how far we truly fell since the garden of Eden. Tragic.
That would be Ape sir. Monkeys are not on our level yo.. -
FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »Just smh @ folks clinging to their monkey heritage for dear life. Absolutely disgusting. Folks is really holding their head high declaring their monkey heriatage? My how far we truly fell since the garden of Eden. Tragic.
That would be Ape sir. Monkeys are not on our level yo..
Turrible, just turrible. -
Knock_Twice wrote: »man you been done and didn't provide nothing but Youtube clips of stanky ass monkeys beating down rocks and a bunch text that you thought sounded so deep lol...told you ? if you can't explain it to a 5th grader or an 60 year old, then you needs to get off that soapbox you're standing on...you looking weak...
Species do not jump from one to the next within a generation. In simpler terms a clown fish does not just give birth to a flounder fish. It happens slowly over time. Just like when two humans come together and have children that have different genetics than their parents so do other animals. The genetics your kids have is random to an extent but is heavily influenced by the genes its parents have. The genes that are most useful to an animal are the ones that get passed on while genes that hurt an animal's chances of survival and reproduction do not get passed on because that animal either dies or it does not get to have kids.
Over a long period of time the genetics of an entire group of animals can change because some genes might be better than others. A famous example is the grey moths in England during the industrial revolution that were able to blend in with the soot covered foliage and avoid getting eaten. This started out as a mutation that very few moths had but because it was effective at preventing them from getting eaten it became common. This is just one change and does not mean another species was created. In order for a new species to be created an animal has to be dissimilar to another to the point of being unable to reproduce with it. In simpler terms their genetics need to be so completely different that they cannot biologically have kids together and produce offspring that are also capable of having kids. Some animals are similar enough to reproduce together, such as mules and horses, but their offspring are impotent.
When you think of evolution you have to think of it as having occurred over hundreds of thousands of years. If you cannot let go of ideas that the earth is only 6,000 years old then even simple explanations like the above will not make sense to you.
The experiments behind the peppered moth story are known to be flawed
The evidence that predation by birds has caused the change in frequency of moth colour rests on a series of experiments which are now known to have been flawed. Bernard Kettlewell, who carried out most of the studies, assumed that the moths rested on tree trunks during the day. However, it is very difficult to find wild moths in their natural resting places (most textbook photos are of dead moths glued to tree trunks). Painstaking subsequent observations of wild moths have shown that they prefer to settle in locations higher in the tree than those used by Kettlewell. Another problem is that Kettlewell released his moths at the wrong time of day. This meant that they were not able to settle naturally in their preferred resting site. Futhermore, he released large numbers of moths, which may have created an artificial magnet for predatory birds. The experiments were simply too artificial – the moths were released at the wrong time of day, in the wrong places, and in the wrong numbers.
Conclusion
School children need to learn that the peppered moth story provides evidence for changes of frequencies of different types within a population, but does not show that large scale evolution can occur. They should also understand that the original experiments behind the peppered moth story have widely acknowledged flaws, and some of these issues have been addressed in more recent experiments.
Bibliography
Proffitt, F. 2004 In defense of Darwin and a Former Icon of Evolution. Science 304:1894-1895
So it begins................
@ All you ? .......
-
EmperorRises wrote: »atribecalledgabi wrote: »yo....is this ? saying water & rocks are products of evolution? lmfaooo
That's why I'm done here.
@Oceanic
@zombie
Someone else please debate and get three more pages in for a ? for that double platinum thread.
I ain't trying to argue with this man. He don't understand ? you tell him.
I'm done lol and even Yahshua didn't explain ? to people at the level of a fifth grader but spoke in parables. -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »Just smh @ folks clinging to their monkey heritage for dear life. Absolutely disgusting. Folks is really holding their head high declaring their monkey heriatage? My how far we truly fell since the garden of Eden. Tragic.
Eden is metaphysical not physical genesis is not actual history. It was more about becoming self aware and our connection to the universe/? /creator. -
EmperorRises wrote: »EmperorRises wrote: »atribecalledgabi wrote: »yo....is this ? saying water & rocks are products of evolution? lmfaooo
That's why I'm done here.
@Oceanic
@zombie
Someone else please debate and get three more pages in for a ? for that double platinum thread.
I ain't trying to argue with this man. He don't understand ? you tell him.
I'm done lol and even Yahshua didn't explain ? to people at the level of a fifth grader but spoke in parables.
Yea..........
You herbs would pull up lame when the truth steps in the thread..............
-
Fossils Indicate Common Ancestor for Old World Monkeys and Apes
Find suggests Old World monkeys and apes diverged 25 million years ago.
Chris Palmer
15 May 2013
http://www.nature.com/news/fossils-indicate-common-ancestor-for-two-primate-groups-1.12997
Two new Oligocene primates found in Tanzania, Rukwapithecus fleaglei (foreground left) and Nsungwepithecus gunnelli (background right), are shown here in an artist's reconstruction.
However......Many fossils from the late Oligocene are teeth, so it is common to use them for species identification. However, basing the identification of a new primate on a single tooth fossil has lead to the occasional case of mistaken identity in the fossil record.
LOL @ the nerve of these anti-creationists...........
-
A.J. Trillzynski wrote: »I had some questions about evolution once, like how much do leading Scientists really know? what's the very latest scoop on this ? ? so I went to the book store and I discovered that there is an entire science out there called evolutionary biology. And in this field of science, there is a ? ton of material to read up on. You would be amazed at how deep this stuff goes, every day people are learning more about how evolution works and the facts are piling up at an extraordinary rate.
for people in this thread parading their ignorance like its funny, its really not. you might think its funny and get a few lol's here and there, but to the outside world you are embarrassing yourself. don't be stupid. just don't. Instead of asking dumb questions on a message board, read a book. have an intelligent discussion about whatever doubts you might have afterwards. trying to have a debate without even understanding the most basic basic ? though.. its absurd. don't be stupid, get smart.
this ? will really open your eyes, man. you're not a Scientist, in truth. I'm not either. Just be honest, you don't know ? all about evolution. But you would be AMAZED about how much IS KNOWN about evolution. you want documented evidence? read this book. you want to trace our lineage all the way back to primordial ooze with an actual evolutionary biologist holding your hand and explaining ? to you like a child the whole way through? read this book.
"For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself
with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy
grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an
evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in
Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was
within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces
by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that
the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no
evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste.
That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of
biology needs to change."
http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html
On The Origin of Species 22 years later, Darwin's spindly tree had grown into a mighty oak. The book contains numerous references to the tree and its only diagram is of a branching structure showing how one species can evolve into many.
The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened. The tree also helped carry the day for evolution. Darwin argued successfully that the tree of life was a fact of nature, plain for all to see though in need of explanation. The explanation he came up with was evolution by natural selection. ...
From tree to web
"As it became clear that HGT was a major factor, biologists started to realise the implications for the tree concept. As early as 1993, some were proposing that for bacteria and archaea the tree of life was more like a web. In 1999, Doolittle made the provocative claim that "the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree" (Science, vol 284, p 2124). "The tree of life is not something that exists in nature, it's a way that humans classify nature," he says."
http://youtu.be/MXrYhINutuI
