But it doesn't hold up, darwinian evolution theory that is. In particular, there is no evidence of evolution from one species to another. There is still no evidence we decended from apes. But there is evidence today (i mean right now), that shows we exist alongside apes. There is no evidence found yet that links us to anything pre-human. Expecially as the human fossil record keeps getting older with every year as archeoligists discover older human remains dating back millions of years.
And why has there been no dna tests done on the weird Peruvian skulls displayed in museums? Also the Egyptian Pharoah skulls are the same species as the Peruvian skulls. They're clearly not human, but existed in our civilised history. They do not have the same type of skull as us or prehuman, they don't have the same amount of plate joins on the top of the head, and their brain size was at least a 1/3rd larger than ours. Clearly the result of a different species, rather than the common theory that they bound their heads to shape them when they were infants. I'm sure binding a human baby skull to change its shape, wouldn't cause there to be only 2 plates on the skull cap. Type of growth is obviously dictated by dna. I wish someone would pay for them to be dna tested, find out what they are.
Nevermind human evolution. Show me one piece of evidence of any animal evolving into a new species.
I think darwinianism is total nonsense. Its not a bit scientific at all as it provides no proof at all. I prefer a spontaneous creation theory, wherever there is the conditions (environment), life will be created according to the 'soup' it originates from. Out of the consequence of forces acting upon it.
After all, there are at least 5 new species on this planet every year. Without any evidence of what they might have evolved from. They just appear out of environmental consequence.
Oh dear, with all due respect, you clearly know not of what you speak.
The evidence for evolution is huge, comprehensive and conclusive.
Yes there are 'missing links' in the chains and details still to fill in but total dismissal of evolution is an attitude about 100 years out of date.
But it doesn't hold up, darwinian evolution theory that is. In particular, there is no evidence of evolution from one species to another. There is still no evidence we decended from apes. But there is evidence today (i mean right now), that shows we exist alongside apes. There is no evidence found yet that links us to anything pre-human. Expecially as the human fossil record keeps getting older with every year as archeoligists discover older human remains dating back millions of years.
And why has there been no dna tests done on the weird Peruvian skulls displayed in museums? Also the Egyptian Pharoah skulls are the same species as the Peruvian skulls. They're clearly not human, but existed in our civilised history. They do not have the same type of skull as us or prehuman, they don't have the same amount of plate joins on the top of the head, and their brain size was at least a 1/3rd larger than ours. Clearly the result of a different species, rather than the common theory that they bound their heads to shape them when they were infants. I'm sure binding a human baby skull to change its shape, wouldn't cause there to be only 2 plates on the skull cap. Type of growth is obviously dictated by dna. I wish someone would pay for them to be dna tested, find out what they are.
Nevermind human evolution. Show me one piece of evidence of any animal evolving into a new species.
I think darwinianism is total nonsense. Its not a bit scientific at all as it provides no proof at all. I prefer a spontaneous creation theory, wherever there is the conditions (environment), life will be created according to the 'soup' it originates from. Out of the consequence of forces acting upon it.
After all, there are at least 5 new species on this planet every year. Without any evidence of what they might have evolved from. They just appear out of environmental consequence.
"Darwinism" is not the correct term for the theory of evolution, and tends to be used to imply that it is a belief rather than a fact (with the details being debated and revised as new studies arrive). The theory of evolution is not dogmatic. It adapts to new evidence, and is now heavily researched from a genetic perspective.
Evidence for the spontanious creation of new species is hard to come by, but there has been a lot of work done in this area, and has been observed at the bacterial level.
We did not descend from Apes. We share a common ancestor.
The spontaneous creation of complexity has no basis in science . The fantastic thing about the theory of evolution is that it does not require any guiding hand. We are all shaped from our environment.
Even if we ignore the mountains of evidence from the fossil record or genetic science; to assert that "Darwinism" is total nonsense would require a theory that better fits observations in the universe. What would you put forward in its place?
Nevermind human evolution. Show me one piece of evidence of any animal evolving into a new species.
Gah wasn't going to bite :-D
We have so many intermediates in the fossil record and artificial selection has lead to enormous differences between individuals of the same species in a relatively short time, eg domestic sheep can't breed with their descendants, hence they've speciated.
Not being funny but what would you accept as evidence? Could you define what the missing link would look like if you were to accept it?
No I wasn't either, but a mate of mine a few weeks ago said his nine year old daughter came home and told him we were descended from apes, so it must be taught.
The theory of evolution is just that, a theory, widely accepted to be correct of course, but there are gaps, hence "the missing link" which we now know to be C64 owners :lol:
Well considering our DNA is 98.4% simular to that of apes and science can prove that via DNA analysis, I would certainly put more faith in science than I do religion and the tooth fairy :lol:
Looking round our classes, there was little further evidence required to prove that we were closly related, if not decended from apes. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
We did not descend from Apes. We share a common ancestor.
The spontaneous creation of complexity has no basis in science. The fantastic thing about the theory of evolution is that it does not require any guiding hand. We are all shaped from our environment.
We have so many intermediates in the fossil record and artificial selection has lead to enormous differences between individuals of the same species in a relatively short time, eg domestic sheep can't breed with their descendants, hence they've speciated.
Not being funny but what would you accept as evidence? Could you define what the missing link would look like if you were to accept it?
Your missing the point. What does domestication do to an animal? It changes its survival environment which alters its reproduction. Environment conditions come first again as the predominant cause for life.
Show me ape parents to a human baby.
And yes we have lots of evidence in the fossil record that proves modern man existed for millions of years. Its just ignored because it doesn't fit the predominant theory.
Well considering our DNA is 98.4% simular to that of apes and science can prove that via DNA analysis, I would certainly put more faith in science than I do religion and the tooth fairy :lol:
Thats 98.4% of the DNA that is not considered as junk DNA. If we have 100% tha DNA of a horseradish, it doesn't mean we're related.
Life isn't just the result of DNA, the environment provides signals that trigger the production of RNA from the DNA to make the stuff we need to live(proteins,acids etc). DNA is passed on through breeding, but its RNA that makes stuff. DNA is just blueprints that were written by the electromagnetic soup of existance, and breeding preserves it. The electromagnetic soup is created by every other thing, creating more differing angles of momentum at a molecular level. Wave guides for elements/materials to be stable with.
Out of the soup of chaos, like meets like, cooperates, agrees and appears to the outside as an organism. The more diversity of material, the greater the 'information' in the electromagnetic field. Fields crossing fields, like fields conglomorate and appear to organise to become something greater than the sum of its parts. A 'higher' state of being. An organised system out of chaos.
Also, why haven't the weird Peruvian skulls been DNA tested? They're clearly not modern human like us as they only have 2 skull plates. One joining line only across the skull cap. No amount of binding a babies head to alter its shape will change the way a skull grows. The Eqyptian Pharoah skulls are the same as well. Massive elongated skulls (hidden beneath long hats in Egypt). Brain capacity was also at least 1/3rd larger than modern man. They also do not fit with any pre-human or ape species either.
You can see from some of the Peruvian skulls that are in museums that samples of the skulls have been taken. Why don't we have the results?
They might fill in some kind of missing link. Or not.
Also, why haven't the weird Peruvian skulls been DNA tested? They're clearly not modern human like us as they only have 2 skull plates. One joining line only across the skull cap. No amount of binding a babies head to alter its shape will change the way a skull grows.
...Why no DNA results from them?
Au Contraire head binding does cause major head deformation just as foot binding in China caused major foot deformation. Also the brain size of these skulls is the SAME not larger as you claim (although the deformation would probably cause big migraines).
Perhaps the biggest proof for evolution is that of domestic cat and dog breeding. 90% of all breeds of cat and dog did not exist 1,000 years ago. Breeding works because humans decide which animals shall reproduce, controlled selection rather than natural selection. As parents pass their genetic traits to their offspring the required traits required by the breeder quickly replace the unwanted which results in diversion from the original species.
Also in the reptile world there are skinks that are losing their limbs becoming less developed and will ultimately become limbless lizards, some species have lost their front legs. The larger species of constrictors (Anacondas, Reticulated Pythons) still have the remnants of their hind limbs.
Comments
Oh dear, with all due respect, you clearly know not of what you speak.
The evidence for evolution is huge, comprehensive and conclusive.
Yes there are 'missing links' in the chains and details still to fill in but total dismissal of evolution is an attitude about 100 years out of date.
"Darwinism" is not the correct term for the theory of evolution, and tends to be used to imply that it is a belief rather than a fact (with the details being debated and revised as new studies arrive). The theory of evolution is not dogmatic. It adapts to new evidence, and is now heavily researched from a genetic perspective.
Evidence for the spontanious creation of new species is hard to come by, but there has been a lot of work done in this area, and has been observed at the bacterial level.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
We did not descend from Apes. We share a common ancestor.
The spontaneous creation of complexity has no basis in science . The fantastic thing about the theory of evolution is that it does not require any guiding hand. We are all shaped from our environment.
Even if we ignore the mountains of evidence from the fossil record or genetic science; to assert that "Darwinism" is total nonsense would require a theory that better fits observations in the universe. What would you put forward in its place?
Gah wasn't going to bite :-D
We have so many intermediates in the fossil record and artificial selection has lead to enormous differences between individuals of the same species in a relatively short time, eg domestic sheep can't breed with their descendants, hence they've speciated.
Not being funny but what would you accept as evidence? Could you define what the missing link would look like if you were to accept it?
Well considering our DNA is 98.4% simular to that of apes and science can prove that via DNA analysis, I would certainly put more faith in science than I do religion and the tooth fairy :lol:
Erm, I agree we did not descend from Apes.
But may I point you to the Cambrian Explosion Event for evidence of spontaneous 'evolution'/'creation'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
Your missing the point. What does domestication do to an animal? It changes its survival environment which alters its reproduction. Environment conditions come first again as the predominant cause for life.
Show me ape parents to a human baby.
And yes we have lots of evidence in the fossil record that proves modern man existed for millions of years. Its just ignored because it doesn't fit the predominant theory.
Thats 98.4% of the DNA that is not considered as junk DNA. If we have 100% tha DNA of a horseradish, it doesn't mean we're related.
Life isn't just the result of DNA, the environment provides signals that trigger the production of RNA from the DNA to make the stuff we need to live(proteins,acids etc). DNA is passed on through breeding, but its RNA that makes stuff. DNA is just blueprints that were written by the electromagnetic soup of existance, and breeding preserves it. The electromagnetic soup is created by every other thing, creating more differing angles of momentum at a molecular level. Wave guides for elements/materials to be stable with.
Out of the soup of chaos, like meets like, cooperates, agrees and appears to the outside as an organism. The more diversity of material, the greater the 'information' in the electromagnetic field. Fields crossing fields, like fields conglomorate and appear to organise to become something greater than the sum of its parts. A 'higher' state of being. An organised system out of chaos.
You can see from some of the Peruvian skulls that are in museums that samples of the skulls have been taken. Why don't we have the results?
They might fill in some kind of missing link. Or not.
Why no DNA results from them?
Au Contraire head binding does cause major head deformation just as foot binding in China caused major foot deformation. Also the brain size of these skulls is the SAME not larger as you claim (although the deformation would probably cause big migraines).
Perhaps the biggest proof for evolution is that of domestic cat and dog breeding. 90% of all breeds of cat and dog did not exist 1,000 years ago. Breeding works because humans decide which animals shall reproduce, controlled selection rather than natural selection. As parents pass their genetic traits to their offspring the required traits required by the breeder quickly replace the unwanted which results in diversion from the original species.
Also in the reptile world there are skinks that are losing their limbs becoming less developed and will ultimately become limbless lizards, some species have lost their front legs. The larger species of constrictors (Anacondas, Reticulated Pythons) still have the remnants of their hind limbs.