Adam & Eve had tails? Someone answer these:

reply to post by Good Wolf


If you review my other posts you would see that the mutations post was more on the fun side not to disprove a thing.

Your opinions are always appreciated.

Thanks






[edit on 15-11-2008 by Malevolent_Aliens]

Has anybody gone over Lloyd Pie’s intervention theory here?
Click on the slide show:
www.lloydpye.com...

reply to post by Simplynoone


Hi SN, do you think Adams first wife would have had a tail ? Or could it be the case that b ecause she had a tail Adam didn't like her and god made eve for him without a tale ?

reply to post by moocowman


I dont believe the story of lilith ....if there was a lilith she was a fallen angels or something and it was after the garden ........If she was some creature satan came up with ....then maybe she could have had a tail .. .....that would make her reptilian then wouldnt it ? And I am not so sure I even think they exist ...although I will admit that anything is possible .....

That picture on the page before this one ..is a joke ..
Let me see something real ...


[edit on 15-11-2008 by Simplynoone]

reply to post by Simplynoone



Here's a baby with a tail CHEEKY MONEY ?


[edit on 15-11-2008 by moocowman]

Seriously yall are really stretching it for your evolution theory ....
Why is so important to yall ? If evolution isnt similar to being a religious zealot then I dont know what is ..

Ok so this is nothing more than a growth or an overgrowth of some part ..

And so I did some digging ...
Remine and an anonymous coauthor from the University of Minnesota analyzed Ledley’s findings shortly after the report was published. Their pointed critique of Ledley’s evolutionary thesis speaks for itself:

In evaluating this case report it may be noted firstly that the caudal appendage is not connected to the vertebral column as are the tails of other vertebrates. In addition, the appendage is not even in line with the vertebral column but is 1.5 cm to the right of the midline. Secondly, the appendage contains no bony structures as do the tails of all other vertebrates. These two points support the interpretation that this appendage is not a “true tail” but is likely a dermal (skin) remnant of the fetal ectoderm germ layer located by chance in the caudal region. [ReMine here quoted Ledley to show that these caudal appendages of certain human babies are very different than true tails in other vertebrates.]

Many evolutionists view the appendage as tail-like enough to be interpreted as evidence of man’s primitive evolutionary ancestry. This interpretation has two drawbacks. One drawback is that there are good reasons, as given above, why the appendage may not be interpreted as a true tail. Secondly, there is no well established genetic mechanism to account for the preservation of the structural elements necessary for tail formation in the human genome.

Creationists may view the appendage as a structural variant of developmental origin rather than as a ‘tail: ReMine (1982:8)

Ledley himself (1982) admitted that the so-called caudal appendage may be nothing more than a dermal appendage which by chance occurred in that position. Reno noted that one explanation of these abnormal caudal appendages is that each is merely a birth abnormality:

"Could not this be the result of a deranged process taking place during embryologic development? The normal process is sometimes altered and as a result we see Siamese twins, cleft palates and harelips. No one would argue that these were once normal conditions in a remote ancestor. A "tail" could be such an anomally. Reno (1970:86)
www.angelfire.com...


You also all know that there are chemicals and poisons and whatever in water ..in our foods.....in the air .....especially in places over in India and third world countries ....and any of those things could cause strange growths ...etc .......

My cousins baby was born with here rear in the front and her front in the rear ....she had an abortion 1 year before this baby was born ...and that did something to this baby ...according to the Dr ...she was 6 months along (I kid you not )when the state of Alaska paid (Medicaid)for her to go to Washington State to have it .Alaska would not do it.....and I dont blame them ...but why would the state even pay for it ? ...
My cousin regretted that so bad .....this baby of hers has had to have about ten operations ..(even her guts etc were in the wrong place) ...........


Do yall ever even consider any other explanations for stuff like this other than "It has to be evolution "


[edit on 15-11-2008 by Simplynoone]

reply to post by Simplynoone


To be honest, I'm not really that much bothered about evolution either way, given my current educational status I can quite happily go for god is evolution or evolution is god.
However I have not time for the bible god, that nutter is definatley (imho) imaginary, my educational status does allow me to come to this conclusion.

To many people Yahwe/jesus is as much a god as a kipper is a fish.

reply to post by TheRedneck


If you look at the fossils you clearly see that the older they are, the more apelike they look. The more recent they are, the more like us they look, making it obvious they have been evolving all along.

What about neanderthals? What do you define them as? Animal? Man?

The good news is that as time goes by, we come closer and closer to finding the jackpot that is gonna make it impossible for even a creationist to argue evolution of man from some creature long ago.



The common ancestor of bear and tiger evolved a placenta and live birth, and passed it on to its descendants. And the common ancestor of bear and tiger had its molars evolve into carnassials (shearing teeth), and passed that trait on.

The first mammals evolved from a group of mammal-like reptiles called therapsids about 220 million years ago during the Triassic period



The therapsid was a mammal-like reptile.


If you look at THIS picture, you'll clearly see that the oldest one found is different than the more recent ones.. but each picture has A LONG TIME between them.. if we were to find the direct ancestors of the most recent one, say one for each 1000 year, we would even more clearly be able to see that they got less and less scales and more and more fur etc.

So go out and "dig" for answers

I call it adapting ..Man have adapted since the cave men days ..
Hair protects from weather etc (Very rough environment in those days)little shelter .........we are all spoiled on how we live ..we are very protected (Houses,blankets,heat etc) we wear jeans .(They did not ) so the hair kept them warm... They had to actually HUNT day in and day out ..(That would make them strong and built to a tee with bigger bones etc .........I mean surely you can use your common sense to know this ....I am only a 70 IQ and I can figure that out ....


What about this fish ? It crawls and swims ...
Here is one that really does crawl ....(Or is this fish stuck in his evolving into a human ?) >............
New fish that crawl instead of swim discovered
www.zmescience.com...

Here is a fish that never changed adapted ...or evolved (picture at link)


The Fish Out of Time
Unique in the animal kingdom, with a saga steeped in science and popular imagination, the fabulous Coelacanth ("see-la-kanth"), that 400 million year old "living fossil" fish, swims on! Pre-dating the dinosaurs by millions of years and once thought to have gone extinct with them, 65 million years ago, the Coelacanth was "discovered" alive and well in 1938. In these up to the minute pages, the riveting story of the coelacanth is revealed as never before- in words, pictures, and video clips. Welcome to award winning Dinofish.com. For full features use the Nav Bar at left. For a quick overview, try the illustrated "One Minute Coelacanth," below. This is the web site of the Coelacanth Rescue Mission under the direction of Jerome F Hamlin. Yes, we have amazing Coelagear to help our mission.Your feedback is invited.
www.dinofish.com...

[edit on 15-11-2008 by Simplynoone]

reply to post by Simplynoone


Call it shapechanging for all i care, but if you think it will be easier to understand it that way, ok then:

An apelike creature adapted over time, until we have modern humans like us. All as a result of adapting, until after a while, they started to look different than some ancestors, and then after another long while they had adapted so much that they didnt even look like their long gone relatives used to at all.

reply to post by Daniem

What about neanderthals? What do you define them as? Animal? Man?

I reserve judgment. In other words, I simply do not know.

There's no dishonor in that statement, and I really wish I could hear it more from scientists. It would actually give me more confidence in them.

The common ancestor of bear and tiger evolved a placenta and live birth, and passed it on to its descendants. And the common ancestor of bear and tiger had its molars evolve into carnassials (shearing teeth), and passed that trait on.

My take: Bears and tigers both are equipped with a placenta in order to give live birth. Both have carnassials as opposed to molars, with the two being differing designs on the same basic principle to accomplish differing tasks.

I am familiar with the theory you advance. What I see in that theory is an interpretation of the fossil record. That interpretation may indeed be factual, but we won't truly know it is until we get a record of a single species evolving into an entirely different animal in 1000 year steps. Until then it is still a theory. I really hope we do manage to find that record, as it would put pointless bickering to an end on the subject.

While on other areas of study wherein I am more knowledgeable, I will also state theoretical opinions, on archeology I simply try to state scientific findings accurately as possible, with as little interpretation as I can. Theoretical interpretation is something I take very seriously, as it can confuse facts if incorrect. When I do interpret theory, I try to carefully couch that interpretation as such. Now, some may say I am wrong to do this, and that I am 'ignoring science'. I reply that I am trying to be true to the Scientific Method, and trying to let the data speak for itself. Truth needs no verification, especially from me.

TheRedneck

The Darwin Papers © 2004 James Foard

We have all seen the ape to man series in science books and in museums, and this is presented as though it has been revealed by infallible authority, and Darwin is the modern day prophet of this supposed new revelation of man's beginnings.

We quoted from William Howells in the third chapter where he claimed that Darwin did not actually say that men were descended from monkeys, however Howells should have read his master's writings a little more carefully, for in Darwin's Descent of Man he did state in numerous places his belief that men were descended from apes or monkeys.

One good example should suffice for the present purposes. In the sixth chapter of his Descent, titled On the Affinities and Geneology of Man, Darwin wrote: "There can, consequently, hardly be a doubt that man is an off-shoot from the Old World simian stem; and that under a genealogical point of view he must be classified with the catarhine [Old World monkeys] division . . . But a naturalist, would undoubtedly have ranked as an ape or a monkey, an ancient form which possessed many characters common to the catarhine and platyrhine monkeys, other characters in an intermediate condition, and some few, perhaps, distinct from those now found in either group. And as man from a genealogical point of view belongs to the catarhine or Old World stock, we must conclude, however much the conclusion may revolt our pride, that our early progenitors would have been properly thus designated." (1)

It once again becomes necessary at this point to attempt to find out whether or not Darwin provided any real evidence for the thesis that he just proposed: Did Darwin present any conclusive proof for the evolution of humans from apes having taken place, whether in the present or out of the distant past?

Surprisingly enough, we find out that on both counts Darwin candidly admitted that he had no proof at all for his thesis- that he had found no evidence for man's supposed evolutionary descent from "lower" animals!

For Darwin's answer to the first query, we find where he wrote in his Descent: "But we must not fall into the error of supposing that the early progenitors of the whole simian stock, including man, was identical with, or even closely resembling, any existing ape or monkey." (2)

Thus Darwin admitted he had no current evidence for any type of a "missing link" that would substantiate his theory of the evolutionary descent .

he next place to look to find out if Darwin documented any proof for his speculations of evolution from monkey or ape to man ever having occurred would be in the past. Darwin wrote in the Descent: "With respect to the absence of fossil remains serving to connect man with his ape-like progenitors, no one will lay much stress on this fact . . . those regions which are the most likely to afford remains connecting man with some extinct apelike creature, have not as yet been searched by geologists." (3)

So he presented no evidence from the past of human evolution ever having occured either! The only answer he could muster was the excuse that the search for fossils is a very slow and laborious process, and that the geological record was imperfect, thus his plea to the lack of fossil evidence for his theory was the same rather weak excuse he had made previously in his Origin as to why there had been no sign of the transitional links between any species that would have validated evolution: we just haven't looked hard enough. I would be interested in finding out if there was any material at all in Darwin's writings that could shed some light on whether or not he had ever made any proposition that he was able to back up with observable facts.

And he admitted once more: “The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies,which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower animal. (ibid, Descent, Chapter Six: Birthplace etc.)

Thus we see that Darwin himself provided no really hard data to show that men were descended from anthropoid apes- it was all entire speculation!

He went on to state (Descent, Chapter Six, ibid) that this lack of evidence for his theory would not trouble anyone who believes in evolution! And we see that it does not!

This is rather incredible, that the man whom countless evolutionists over the past century and a half have anointed as the one who proved human evolution beyond a doubt, frankly admitted in his Descent of Man that he had no evidence for it ever having occurred! Not a shred of proof at all!

Since there are only two types of creatures that have ever lived on this earth, either creatures living today and/or creatures that have lived in the past, and Darwin admitted that there was no evidence from either source for validation of his theory, I pointed this out on the Talk.Origins Feedback board (June 1998), and had Kenneth Fair from the University of Chicago respond to this.

Fair first of all made the standard evolutionist claim, inferring that I had quoted Darwin out of context, which evolutionists habitually do against their opponents, yet rarely if ever do they provide proof of their accusations, and Fair provided none.
Then Fair pointed out that when Darwin was talking about the lack of any evolutionary links between presently existing apes and men, that Darwin was actually talking about the lack of any evolutionary links between presently existing apes and men, which kind of makes sense in an oddball sort of way, since Darwin indeed was talking about the lack of any evolutionary links between presently existing apes and men.

Whatever the thrust of Fair’s argument was, it must have meant something to him.

As far as the lack of fossil evidence for man’s evolution in the past, Fair stated that man and apes descended from some type of unknown evolutionary common ancestor, that in Darwin’s time we had not discovered what it was, but since then we have found wonderful evidence of it (or him, or her, or them), but offered no proof of who or what it was, except to offer some links to various supposed and highly controversial ancestors such as Mungo Woman and Mungo Man and other extinct suspects who will be discussed at length in this chapter and the next. Fair said essentially the same thing that Darwin said, using the old evolutionist shell game (the fossil is quicker than the eye), merely reiterating the same excuse of a poor fossil record that Darwin stated over one hundred years ago, however to an evolutionist I am sure that this must have at least seemed like some sort of new conclusive argument for evidence of their theory.

Evolutionists have tried to sidestep this issue by claiming, as Howells attempted to do with Darwin, that they never said that we were descended from apes, merely from a "common ancestor" with apes. This type of verbal sleight-of-hand is typical of evolutionist gobbledegook, and is refuted by their own statements. While evolutionists do believe we came up through the insectivores and then evolved into the prosimians, they also believe that we passed through a stage that could only be described as anthropoid. The suffix "pithecus" attached to many of the peculiar and questionable fossil remains claimed by evolutionists as our ancestors means "ape". The anatomical descriptions of them, their livelihoods, habitat, mental capacities and behavioral patterns all would be consigned to what we would call apes.
As we have seen at the beginning of this chapter, Howells attempted to claim that Darwin never proposed that we came from monkeys but by Darwin's own words we see that Darwin did make that claim, with no evidence to back it up, and there are plenty of quotes from evolutionists since Darwin that show that they do indeed believe, again without any credible evidence, that man descended from the apes. The missing "common ancestor" mythologised about by evolutionists and sought by them in vain for over one hundred years would have been, for all intents and purposes, an ape if it ever had existed.
MORE AT LINK
www.thedarwinpapers.com...

reply to post by TheRedneck


Have you ever heard the statement "research is ongoing" or words to that effect. Going into new research is what scientists do when they don't know.

Though this isn't so much the case with evolution anymore. All the predictions are matched by genetics (with some extra strange things that require ongoing research) and the fossil record.

Originally posted by Malevolent_Aliens


Has anybody gone over Lloyd Pie’s intervention theory here?
Click on the slide show:
www.lloydpye.com...

Hmmm Interesting at a glance but I will have to look at this Further.

Going by the Ancient Writings it is obvious that there has in fact been cross breeding with visitors to this world!

It is in fact one of the reasons for governments to brain washing the public into believing we are the only ones in this universe or that there has been No contact with the children of Earth!

Time is coming when we all shall know the truth no matter what anyone does or does Not do.

It is only a matter of Time !!!!!

But a word of warning this can not be rushed !!!

reply to post by Good Wolf


"all predictions backed up by genetics". Are you joking? What predictions have been backed up by genetics? More like post-experimentation "predictions" made to fit the evidance. predict please what evolutionary changes are going to occur to modern apes, such as chimps, gorillas etc.. please explain what conditions already happened that caused us to develop our brain capacity and smooth skin etc.. and yet did not have a similar effect on other species. surely scientists should know these things.

more like they have given up researching the missing link etc because it is proving impossible. instead they relay on the "we are scientists and we say evolution is fact, no proof needed because we are cleverer than you".

I have to confess I virtually know nothing at all about evolution????

Can anyone put forward the generally accepted theory of evolution.

What is the "Theory" from the beginning until now.

Is it believed, that human primates evolved from another species and are we still looking for that missing link?

Or are all considered different species and each have evolved in their own kind only, or is it believed all species came from one singular cellular organism or an amoeba or something else?

What are evolutionists belief's?

Are they group of people supporting each others belief's, or who exactly are they.

Please Someone, educate me with regard to Evolution and the Evolutionists.

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


Check out TalkOrigins and it will tell you every thing you need know. Then you can learn up on all the creationist claims and how they fair when exposed to science.

reply to post by Good Wolf


Hi Good Wolf,

Thanks again for your support and help.

I have visited the sight and having a good look through it.
It will take a while to go through it al,l but yes I will find it
Educational and give me better understanding from another
Point of View.

But we must keep in mind that there is in fact two things involved

The Story theme in the world as in what is an apparent reality
and the system that produces the experience
and the cause of this being manifested, are completely different.

What produces the universe and what the experience is in
this Universe are two completely different entities!

I do believe that evolution does in fact exist, but as to defining this,
is a major task in its self, as I don't think it is as simple as many make out on both sides of the argument.

However I do Know, that there was and is evolution taking place
in what has produced this Universe and Other as well as Other worlds
unknown.

In another part of my work in the past I can in fact say their has and is
interbreeding going on with our Primate species which may or may Not complicate the findings.

The Interbreeding is not by chance but is believed to be selective.

You can find much evidence of this in history in the form of writings
from all over the world as well as in early Hebrew writings.
For example in the books of E'Noch and The Genesis books as well as
the one in the bible.
But so often humankind can only read what he has pre detmined
the writings to portray and does Not see or read what is actually there.

I will be writing another thread soon to point out all these different
translations comparing them and pointing out what is actually written
and Not my own interpretations are, but rather just point out bit by bit
and let others judge for themselves!

But thanks again for your help, as it will come in handy later on, in threads to come.

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


Well, what that site contains is evolution from a scientific and academic standpoint. You sound like your pursuing a more philosophical theme to evolution. Keep in mind the difference.

reply to post by Good Wolf


I understand where your thoughts come from in thinking I am philosophical about things, but I can assure you, I am definitely a "nuts and bolts" man and Not a philosopher.

In saying that, I often get into philosophy when discussing things when there is an audience that involves those that talk of religion.

But I am an engineer at heart.

But if you take DNA as an example, it looks nothing like the product it produces, such as a primate, and remember DNA is a Chemical Program.

So it is with your universe, the "mechanism" that produces it, looks nothing like the end product and that "mechanism" is also a program.

So we have ask; is the Evolution you see in your word, an experience that has been produced by a program too?

Or is the Evolution you see the program itself?

Now remember I am Not disputing the existence of Evolution, but rather is it the cause or result?

Any thoughts on this?