Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Noinden

Evolution is a theory, a system of ideas. You can believe it if you wish, but you can't get pissed off just because someone else doesn't buy into that same system of ideas.

You obviously can't read. Evolution is fact based on the scientific definition of fact. Prove that wrong.

No, evolution is a theory based on findings that haven't been proven without a shadow of a doubt.

Hey, don't you read anything? How ignorant can you be? Remember to write that letter.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Do you think you came from a monkey? Do you think your monkey ancestor was special and able to evolve into a human while the other moneys were too dumb and stayed behind to stay monkeys? Maybe somewhere down the line a human donked a monkey and a child was able to be born, but they didn't evolve into monkeys.

It looks like that might be a bit of logic "they" wish not to debate.

I point out that most certainly "Bestiality" did occur. Its just that some folks are rather "Ashamed" of what they did, and refuse to show their faces, in the light of day. Did I just say that? (Monkey Humpers. LOL LOL)

Not just any monkey as Neanderthal was more human than any other primate. The story of Zana, if true, and I have no reason to consider the story to be a fabrication, displays the process of natural creation, not evolution. But again, the first 3 billion years of this planets history is wide open to natural Evolution.

So, could it be true that Zana was actually a Neanderthal who wondered away from her tribe of highly illusive, intelligent leftovers? A awful lot of sightings of "Bigfoot" globally. Nothing is settled!

You have to give the Bigfoot credit in that they are intelligent enough, to stay away from us . lol lol lol

Agreed. It's not like there was an abundance of choices back then

Back when? I’m curious what leads you to believe that morality is a new concept that magically appeared one day and that prior to this influx of magic morality members of our genus were getting their freak on wth any mammal they could hold down long enough to do the deed. So what time frame are you referencing with your extraordinarily vague statement of “back then”?

and nobody knew bestiality was bad or immoral so when desperate times called for desperate measures, I'm sure many humans partook in the action.

Sure, you’re from the South where that kind of thing isn’t that out of the ordinary after a few too many beers. It is however important to note, that being able to overlook the weekend antics of your own circle of friends is not the equivalent of demonstrating tangible evidence to support your position which doesn’t even constitute a testable hypothesis let alone be anywhere near a Scientific Theory.

Bigfoot is interesting because scientists love to discount its existence yet you can find sightings of Bigfoot that go back a long long time.

Which scientists exactly? If you actually understood how the scientific method works, you may have had a clue as to why your quoted statement is devoid of logic. See, the way things work when utilizing the scientific method one doesn’t attempt to disprove or “discount” something. People working in scientific fields, in the case of hypothetical Bigfoot it would be a biologist, they only deal with what the evidence can demonstrate. So implying that scientists are dishonest or disingenuous because they only deal in facts is in and of itself, a position of intellectual dishonesty. Claiming that Bigfoot is real because you can make claims of sightings that go back a “long long time” is incomprehensibly vague. But vagueness is par for the course when reading through your replies in this thread. Ironic considering you seem to believe that science, scientists and people agree with science et al are perpetuating false paradigms

Same theory can be applied there. Interbreeding between a female human and male monkey would lead to the mother taking care of the child and the child breeding later with another human, whereas if a male human interbred with a female monkey, that female monkey would take care of the child which would breed with monkeys. Who's to say the genes didn't keep it walking upright and keep its human traits?

If the above scenario were to take place, it would provide evidence that falsified evolutionary biology. In other
Words, if a Homo Sapiens sapiens were to engage in coitus with a monkey, became pregnant and the offspring not only survived bu was viable (meaning it wasn’t sterile) then you would have single handed, falsified the MES. Unfortunately for you and your refusal to try to understand what is actually postulated in the MES, your personal fantasies aren’t viable in a biological or genetic capacity.

Evolution is just one of many theories.

So which theory do you believe most accurately depicts and explains how biological life changes over time? What is the evidence supporting this theory that you find so compelling?

And most importantly, what are these other alleged theories regarding the degree of genetic diversity on earth?

It's always funny to see the die hard science folks accept one theory but aggressively reject any other theory. Maybe it's the monkey genes coming out

Maybe it’s because you haven’t demonstrated an alternative theory period let alone a viable one. Hell, you haven’t even demonstrated an understanding of the differences between a Scientific Theory and a layman’s Theory. Nor have you demonstrated a cursory understanding of biology or genetics with your misguided belief that humans not only did engage in sexual activities with “monkeys” but also had viable and fertile offspring. For the record, the LCA between old world monkeys and our own genus was about 25 MA. It’s not even a remote possibility of viable offspring. If you don’t believe me, just ask the Soviet’s. They spent several years in the 1950’s unsuccessfully attempting to create hybrid offspring between humans and chimpanzees. Just a public service announcement... Chimpanzee are apes not monkeys and our closest living relative. The LCA between Chimps and Humans is roughly 8 million years ago based on mutation rates. Snug we can’t succesfully mate with a species as closely related to us as Chimps or Bonobos what has lead you to the conclusion that members of our genus engaged in bestiality (with zero supporting evidence) that led to successful viable offspring ?

So far, we have established that you don’t even have a basic high school level understanding of Biology

That you don’t understand the difference between a Scientific Theory and a hunch/layman’s theory

Zero understanding of genetics

Continued insistence that evolution isn’t a fact, that it is “only a theory”. Just for the record, evolution is indeed a fact and occurs in all biological life on earth. The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a theory that attempts to illustrate the mechanisms that lead to changes in allele frequency over time.

It isn’t trying to prove that evolution occurs because it is already an observable, testable and repeatable fact. In the history of science, there has not been a theory with as much supporting data as the MES has. You can dispute it all you like for whatever made up reason you choose to. All that does however is show people that you are devoid of intellectual curiosity and don’t understand the most basic aspects of science that you dismiss out of hand.

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: peter vlar

Hey I appreciate all the little jabs, they kept me intrigued to read more and more until I got to the end of your response.

I hope you feel better now.

Not really. You’re still making things up as you go. Like your usage of ape and monkey as interchangeable placeholders that apparently mean the same thing in your head or like your claim in the next statement..,

I get the theory... Darwin said a Sinonyx (hyena) became a Humpback Whale over 60 million years.

No, Darwin didn’t say this. Though I don’t actually expect accuracy, honesty or due diligence from you based on this thread alone. The closest Darwin got to whales was in the first edition of On the Origin of Species where he talked about black bears in N. America and how they swam for hours and caught insects and fish in their mouths similarly to how Baleen Whales caught their food. This was however omitted from future editions which Darwin regretted.

I have no doubts that the human body can evolve in specific categories like lighter skin, darker skin, different eyes, etc.

So which is it? Humans can evolve or we haven’t evolved at all of the last couple hundred thousand years? Because that was your claim earlier... that we haven’t changed at all in a couple hundred thousand years.

So you seem to be agreeing with me, that we didn't come from apes. Thanks for that.

Maybe I was overly optimistic encouraging ou to get a library card because your reading comprehension skills are pretty atrocious. Bottom line is that we are apes and share a common ancestor with the other extant great apes. That is a completely different thing than your continued and thinly veiled racist rants about evolving from monkeys and bestiality involving monkeys. For the record, monkeys aren’t apes and apes aren’t monkeys. The two terms are not interchangeable.

Everything I've read or heard has claimed that monkeys evolved into humans.

Then you haven’t read anything regarding the evolution of hominids because there is nothing in the peer reviewed or any other literature, unless you’re reading YEC or anti science and willfully ignorant material because nowhere in the legitimate scientific literature is this claim repeated.

I don't need a library card, I have Google and I'm going to Google "Theory of Evolution" to see what pops up.

Not a bad move. With the reading comprehension skills demondtrated previously, you’re much better off sticking to pictures and coloring books.

This is the crap we've been fed for ages. Tell me where this says we only share a common ancestor and weren't evolved from apes.

The picture? It says nothing. It’s a picture. The messsge that we are the offspring of apes is one that you have chosen to impart upon the pic of your own volition.

This is what happens when you lack intellectual curiosity and prefer the safety net of confirmation bias. Your picture is a 50 year old anachronism. It was created to give an overly simplistic view of the evolution of our genus. The picture doesn’t say one way or the other regarding Common ancestry. You are choosing to superimpose your own message based on your own limited understanding of the science while ranting about bestiality to deflect from the glaring holes in your understanding of some pretty basic aspects of science does you a great disservice.

To understand something as large and comprehensive as the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis which spans multiple scientific disciplines from biology to genetics to anthropology and paleontology requires far more than a basic google search and a artistic rendition which drastically oversimplifies things, requires much more time and knowledge than you appear willing to expend. New discoveries are made every year that expands the knowledge base we have to draw from, fills in the blanks and also makes it very obvious that there is no clearly defined straight line from A to B. and there isn’t
any way to try to fit what evolution is and how it works into some slick little headline or twitter sized blurb. There isn’t a straight line, there isn’t even a family tree. It’s more like a braided stream where genetic ingression, admixture, population movements out of a geographical locus and then movement back into the same areas tens of thousands of years later which brings new genetics from admixture events and back and forth.

At the end of all of your refusal to understand what is actually postulated in the MES, bizarre diatribes espousing bestiality and willfully ignorant positions on the evolution of hominids, you have not supported any of your positions not have you offered anything resembling an alternative hypothesis or theory that you believe better explains the genetic diversity found on earth. For someone who is so against what is quite honestly the most widely evidenced and supported theory in the history of science, it’s a little odd that you have failed to put forth an alternative scenario and outlined the evidence for it.

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Whatever man, PM me if you have something personal to say. I'll tell you everything you need to know, as based on facts. I'm reposting facts. More factual than evolution.

No, you’re posting hyperbolic conjecture. If you were posting facts, yo-yo would support them with a citation. Herr, I’ll give you an example so that you can see how it is done.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Controversial study of African IQ levels is 'deeply flawed

In an oft-quoted literature study conducted in 2006, Lynn concluded that black Africans have an average IQ of less than 70 (compared to an average western IQ of 100). Lynn suggested that these low IQs are indicative of a low intelligence level, claiming this offered an explanation for the low level of economic development in sub-Saharan countries.

Lynn's study is well known among psychologists, and has been referenced by academics such as Nobel laureate James Watson, and the authors of the controversial book The Bell Curve -- Intelligence and Class Structure in America (Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray: Freepress, 1994).

African IQ scores prove flawed

Wicherts and his colleagues examined over 100 published studies, concluding that there is no evidence to back up Lynn's claims. Amongst other flaws, Lynn used selective data by systematically ignoring Africans with high IQ scores. The researchers also claim that African IQ test scores cannot be interpreted in terms of lower intelligence levels, as these scores have different psychometric characteristics than western IQ test scores. Until now, the incomparability of Western and African IQ scores had never been systematically proven.

The scientists point out that the average African IQ is currently comparable to the average level in the Netherlands around 1950.

See, you’re posting the information you want to push without context. That isn’t posting facts, that is tailoring the data to suit the conclusion you wish to see.

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Akragon

That's what we've always been shown and what comes up first when I search "Theory of Evolution." It tells me that evolution suggests we came from monkeys. And millions of people out there will argue that we DID come from monkeys.

How exactly does the picture being referenced suggest that we can from monkeys? There aren’t any monkeys in the picture. Seems like a hell of a stretch of the imagination to see a picture with zero monkeys that forms the basis of the belief that evolutionary theory included hominids evolving from old world monkeys. Or is this your way of admitting that you don’t know the difference between a monkey and an ape?

a reply to: LSU0408

Really?

First: There are NO Monkies in that piece of art.
Second: Have you ever seen a Phylogenetic tree In particular one for Primate evolution?

You are parroting (like RaggedyMan) Creationist falsehoods.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Show how the out of Africa theory (which has the most evidence for being correct) says that Sub-Saharan African Homo sapiens are stupid and breed with monkeys? No seriously. Sub Saharan humans did not interbreed with Denisovians or Neanderthals, as did other groups.

Stop making things up.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Do you think you came from a monkey? Do you think your monkey ancestor was special and able to evolve into a human while the other moneys were too dumb and stayed behind to stay monkeys? Maybe somewhere down the line a human donked a monkey and a child was able to be born, but they didn't evolve into monkeys.

It looks like that might be a bit of logic "they" wish not to debate.

You’re kidding right?’there isn’t any logic in the above scenario to debate. We are separated from the LCA between our genus and old world monkeys by roughly 20 Ma. There is zero chance of offspring between humans and whatever magical monkey it is that you think would just hang out and let itself be taped by a human and likewise, do you really want to promote monkeys taping members of our genus? Please show me a single instance of (insert random old world monkey species) admixture or gene transfer from one to the other.

I point out that most certainly "Bestiality" did occur. Its just that some folks are rather "Ashamed" of what they did, and refuse to show their faces, in the light of day. Did I just say that? (Monkey Humpers. LOL LOL)

Oh lovely... while some of us are willing to entertain serious dialogue we apparently have to filter through for the children who managed to get online while mom and dad weren’t looking.

Not just any monkey as Neanderthal was more human than any other primate.

I’m confused here... are you implying that Neanderthal were monkeys? Do you know what the difference between an ape and a monkey is? How about the difference between a hominid and a monkey?

The story of Zana, if true, and I have no reason to consider the story to be a fabrication, displays the process of natural creation, not evolution.

You have no reason to doubt an apocryphal story... no of course not because it plays into your confirmation bias after all!

Perhaps you could enlighten those of us with low IQ’s due to believing that OOA is a legitimate model, as to what exactly “natural creation” is and how it applies to Zana?

But again, the first 3 billion years of this planets history is wide open to natural Evolution.

Ok... so evolution is OK until a billion and a half years ago but Homo Sapiens Sapiens is not affected by evolution only
B natural creation. How do you reconcile the 2?

What is the evidence for Natural Creation and how it applies to humans? Do you have any citations you can supply to demonstrate this correlation? It is this your own personal hypothesis?

So, could it be true that Zana was actually a Neanderthal who wondered away from her tribe of highly illusive, intelligent leftovers? A awful lot of sightings of "Bigfoot" globally. Nothing is settled!

Yeah... I like where you’re going with this! Somehow a species of humans indigenous to Eurasia during the last glaciation event who were about 5’6” to 5’ 7” at their tallest with feet comparable to 21st century humans is somehow a nearly 7 foot all hominid with massive feet.

Not a single attribute allegedly given to Zana can be attributed to Neanderthal. Neanderthal have a high degree of sexual dimorphism. What that means is that the difference in size between male and female is pretty significant. Fully mature males averaged around 5’ 6” while fully mature females were about 5’ 1”/5’ 2” they weren’t covered in hair like Zana is supposed to have been and then there are her genetics... Zana had Sfrican genetics. Neanderthal would not have shared those genetics at all as they are separated from H. Sapiens for ~1.5 Ma and had very distinct genomes. There is zero chance that Zana was a Neanderthal. My assessment on Zana bring a Neanderthal has nothing whatsoever to do with Bigfoot or its alleged existence. The 2 have nothing to do with each other and there is no mutual exclusivity despite your attempt to tie them together as such.

a reply to: Noinden

To be fair and yes, it’s a little pedantic, but... there are some subsaharan Africans demonstrating tiny bits of Neanderthal genetics in the 1% or less range but this is due to a back migration from Europe into Africa ~70Ka bringing those genetics with them. They never met up with Neanderthal themselves, just a few of their genes coming down to Sfricanin European hosts. Regardless of Aboriginal Eurasian Clades introgression into SubSaharan Africa, none of them were mating with monkeys let alone creating viable embryos that made it to birth and there certainly weren’t any viable births who were fertile. The entire premise is insane. If the Soviet’s couldn’t create human-chimp hybrids in the 1950’s using artificial inseminatiin techniques there’s no way in Hades’ that anyone in Africa mated and bred with old world monkeys resulting in their low IQ’s according to a flawed study with poor controls and an insane premise.

a reply to: peter vlar

Well yes there are, however generally they don't (we are talking statistical levels of Neanderthal and or Denisovian in most populations where you'd expect to see it anyway).

Bringing up the other hominin ancestry was my way of showing that the so called "superior" (I am sure someone is thinking European) populations, have ancestors who got jiggy with "not Homo sapiens, which by the standards of the racist thralls is apparently "naughty". Yet te evidence is right there, in their genomes.

a reply to: TzarChasm[quote]There are no mind games in evolution, just a spectrum of studies that demand our diligent attention if we are to understand the past and what it might mean about the future.That's all fine, after all, we, as a species, need to know where we have been, in order to know where we are going. The problem is, the playing field is not level! "diligent attention "? Not just in one area! There are a few "Missing Links", and I know as a fact about one, as I have seen it with my own eyes! Diligent Attention is what I have been paying for 40 years! There is nothing but, mind games! Scientifically, I made an observation and have been gathering information for 40 years as to what it was.

Evolution is not relevant to self actualization.

Your opinion? I prefer Self-realization. I know who, and what I am. I am, a Evolving soul, spirit. And that comes from within, not from some web page! I'm a spirit stuck in a meat bag that was genetically created for such a purpose. But you might not have any idea about that kind of Evolution.

You do not, or can not comprehend that their might be powers that actually don't want the truth to see the light of day. Well, more than might in my opinion. There are those who refuse to accept another dimension at play, on this plane of existence, simply because it can't be proven. It cant be measured, it cant be weighed, therefore, it isn't real. But it has been photographed!

History is converted into mythology because it cant be accepted that there was a advanced race prior to our entry. But the evidence for this is all around us! Its just so arrogant, or a agenda of ignorance, to dispel it out of hand, without mature consideration. If you take all the time this planet has been here and convert it into 12 hours, we human beings have been here for 1/2 second! And in a technological state for 1/4 second! You haven't a clue as to how advanced a previous race might have been, to include Genetic Manipulation! Not to mention inner planetary travel. The sheer ignorance we poses is absolutely unbelievable!

We are fearful creatures cruelly gifted with acute sensitivity to those fears and a relentless drive to resolve our existential futility.

Thank you for your honesty. I myself do not have that cruel gift, and I believe you are correct calling it as such. Though, I am driven to expose corruption, and through my personal choice have learned how to control, that drive, and remain grounded. It does take practice but can be done.

I am aware of the condition you are referring to. I have written about it in other threads and have come to a general conclusion as to why. Cruel, is a appropriate descriptor. Everything, and I mean, Everything, has a reason, no exceptions. As I said above, we actually do serve a purpose that is greater than we can imagine. Hint, do you call yourself a human, or a human being. Zana, was just a human.

You reject the notion of Genetic Creation not because its possible, but because it would require a certain amount of faith. Faith, in a history that has been hidden from, us. Today, our technology is on the verge of "Creating" new life forms using Genetic Engineering.
Scientists create new life form in a lab, altering the fundamentals of DNA
Artificial life breakthrough after scientists create new living organism using synthetic DNA

If you have spent as much time researching the ancient past, and able to put it into its proper context, as you have Evolution, you might discover that there was a great deal of "Creating" going on. No Religious context! Our root race were extremely intelligent, and as I strongly, very strongly, suspect, still are. You want proof? What proof would you accept? They still reside where "Your" ancestors did. The Bible is an excellent history book, and again, read in the proper context. Look up the part about finding your way back to the garden. You will have your proof.

Anyway if it was going to be discredited, I think it would have happened by now.

I must admit, Evolution does sound like something that could happen, except the nature, true nature of DNA. Its main purpose is to replicate, with some very minor variations. A horseshoe crab, is still a horseshoe crab. A platypus is still a platypus, a coelacanth is still a coelacanth, and just recently discovered, a sulfur bacteria, is still just a sulfur bacteria. We can now bring back the woolly mammoth via genetic engineering. No evolution necessary. We, are now, the "Creators". "Your" ancestors go back, millions of years! They left their foot prints, everywhere. Check out the moon "Miranda"! My ancestors, only go back 200,000 years or so. Well, 1/2 of them

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: peter vlar

Hey I appreciate all the little jabs, they kept me intrigued to read more and more until I got to the end of your response.

I hope you feel better now.

I get the theory... Darwin said a Sinonyx (hyena) became a Humpback Whale over 60 million years.

I have no doubts that the human body can evolve in specific categories like lighter skin, darker skin, different eyes, etc. So you seem to be agreeing with me, that we didn't come from apes. Thanks for that. Everything I've read or heard has claimed that monkeys evolved into humans.

I don't need a library card, I have Google and I'm going to Google "Theory of Evolution" to see what pops up.

This is the crap we've been fed for ages. Tell me where this says we only share a common ancestor and weren't evolved from apes.

A misleading picture, i grant you that. But only misleading because it is taken out of context. Those animals all share a common ancestor, it's not a direct procession like one might guess by just looking at this image. Gotta do your homework because its impossible to fit all of the science of evolution into one jpeg.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

The concepts of purpose and destiny are subjects for another thread.

a reply to: peter vlar

Back when? I’m curious what leads you to believe that morality is a new concept that magically appeared one day and that prior to this influx of magic morality members of our genus were getting their freak on wth any mammal they could hold down long enough to do the deed. So what time frame are you referencing with your extraordinarily vague statement of “back then”?

A couple hundred thousand years ago. Try to keep up, being flustered must be messing with you.

Sure, you’re from the South where that kind of thing isn’t that out of the ordinary after a few too many beers. It is however important to note, that being able to overlook the weekend antics of your own circle of friends is not the equivalent of demonstrating tangible evidence to support your position which doesn’t even constitute a testable hypothesis let alone be anywhere near a Scientific Theory.

I've never met someone into bestiality here in the South, maybe you're subliminally telling me an anecdotal story while acting all superior?

If the above scenario were to take place, it would provide evidence that falsified evolutionary biology. In other
Words, if a Homo Sapiens sapiens were to engage in coitus with a monkey, became pregnant and the offspring not only survived bu was viable (meaning it wasn’t sterile) then you would have single handed, falsified the MES. Unfortunately for you and your refusal to try to understand what is actually postulated in the MES, your personal fantasies aren’t viable in a biological or genetic capacity.

Are you sure these aren't your fantasies? I'm offering legit scenarios and you keep babbling about a fantasy.

So which theory do you believe most accurately depicts and explains how biological life changes over time? What is the evidence supporting this theory that you find so compelling?

And most importantly, what are these other alleged theories regarding the degree of genetic diversity on earth?

We started out as humans, interbred with Neanderthals hundreds of thousands of years ago, and outside of a few minor face lifts, we're still the same.

Case in point about getting aggressive when someone doesn't believe in evolution.

a reply to: peter vlar

In the first edition of "The Origin of Species" in 1859, Charles Darwin speculated about how natural selection could cause a land mammal to turn into a whale. As a hypothetical example, Darwin used North American black bears, which were known to catch insects by swimming in the water with their mouths open:

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

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

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

The story of the origin of whales is one of evolution's most fascinating tales and one of the best examples scientists have of natural selection.

You're right. Darwin's theory was criticized so bad that it was removed from his book and then they said it was the Sinonyx.

But here man, you sound triggered so I'll give you the 5 theories of life. I'll take the first theory, you can have the second, and try to enjoy your weekend instead of flipping out.

a reply to: peter vlar

Lynn makes a lot of sense. There's a reason underdeveloped nations are underdeveloped. It's because they never had the competence or drive or intelligence to make a difference.

iq-research.info...

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Akragon

That's what we've always been shown and what comes up first when I search "Theory of Evolution." It tells me that evolution suggests we came from monkeys. And millions of people out there will argue that we DID come from monkeys.

How exactly does the picture being referenced suggest that we can from monkeys? There aren’t any monkeys in the picture. Seems like a hell of a stretch of the imagination to see a picture with zero monkeys that forms the basis of the belief that evolutionary theory included hominids evolving from old world monkeys. Or is this your way of admitting that you don’t know the difference between a monkey and an ape?

If you don't see a monkey in this picture then I can see your problem.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: LSU0408

Really?

First: There are NO Monkies in that piece of art.
Second: Have you ever seen a Phylogenetic tree In particular one for Primate evolution?

You are parroting (like RaggedyMan) Creationist falsehoods.

Heh, so what I believe is 100% wrong and unproven because YOU believe in something else. Lol, okay...