What is wrong in Texas, in the USA?

Who did they poll?
What was the sample?
I know those questions can be answered. I live in Texas, we aren't that dumb around here...ha ha..

Originally posted by antmax21
Who did they poll?
What was the sample?
I know those questions can be answered. I live in Texas, we aren't that dumb around here...ha ha..

Good questions. Like where is the control poll?
Did they ask how many thought Noodleing was for just the Chinese or could any one participate?
Comparison polls from Washing D.C. would be interesting. This crap poll was just a failed attempt to paint American folks in a bad light.
Looking in to the pollsters motive would be more important.
Also beware of those that have delusions of intellectual superiorly.
They are just trying to bolster their own deficiencies.
I love Texas except for LBJ

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by nophun

 

Sorry. Not seeing any monkey fish there.


Or any monkey-cave men.

Or any cave men-modern humans.

If you want to get real technical, where are the transitional fish with no lungs to fish with lungs?



For all we know, those creatures are not even related.


It is all conjecture.

Yo genius ! If you did that would disprove Darwin's natural section/evolution theory .
I think you should learn what evolution is before you make more of a fool or yourself. .. No I am not joking.

Here is a start...


This stuff is covered in grade 7 here in Canada, again not joking.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by nophun]

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

It is all conjecture.

Nope.

It is solid science, based on best observational techniques, and utilizing our frontal lobes (which you may wish to argue were 'god-given")....

The propensity for Humankind to 'believe' in a diety stems far back....and colours perceptions today, based on SOME religious indoctrination that has progressed for centuries.

There are plenty of really, really good videos available, on YouTube, for a start, that expalin this.

Microbiology, a field that is as foreign to me, as to most people, since I'm not schooled in it, nevertheless I can use my BRAIN to understand what scholarly scientists tell me...when presented in basic formatted language that I understand (English language)...and I can tell the difference when a charlatan uses pseudo-science religious mumbo-jumbo to attempt to muddy the waters, and promote his/her particualr religious biased view.

Genetics, Organic Chemistry (every doctor I've ever known tells me that Organic Chemistry was one of the hardest classes they had to take, but had to pass, in pursuit of thier MD or DO)....many, many other scientific disciplines...but those who EXCELL in Organic Chemistry (or any other specific field) all contribute....that's why the term 'specialization' makes sense, as NO ONE person, in many cases, can know all and do all....there has to be collaboration, and mutual professional respect.

I think it's called "peer review'...

Look it up.....

Originally posted by nophun
What ?
The fossil record clearly shows simple organisms then more complex organism then more complex organism .. then more complex organism ... and so on.
re
Evolution explains this .. Six days of creation cannot ..

Your argument is ... ?

[edit on 24-2-2010 by nophun]

No, it doesn't - not at all - Lemon.Fresh is correct.

Take it from a lifelong Evolutionist (who even traveled to the Galapagos Islands to study Darwin's famous work (who he himSELF admitted, his 'theories cannot be tested')). There is absolutely NO evidence in the fossil record that shows lower level organisms transitioning into newer, more complex ones - rather it shows abrubt/'overnight' transformations - THIS is fact.

I recommend you spend some time studying Lloyd Pye's work regarding Darwin.

In 1873, only fourteen years after The Origin Of Species, geologist J.W. Dawson, chancellor of McGill University in Montreal, published The Story Of The Earth And Man, which was every bit as well written and as carefully argued as Darwin’s masterpiece. In it Dawson pointed out that Darwin and his followers were promoting a theory based on three fallacious “gaps” in reasoning that could not be reconciled with the knowledge of their era. What is so telling about Dawson’s three fallacies is that they remain unchanged to this day.

The first fallacy is that life can spontaneously animate from organic material. In 1873 Dawson complained that “the men who evolve all things from physical forces do not yet know how these forces can produce the phenomenon of life even in its humblest forms.” He added that “in every case heretofore, the effort (to create animate life) has proved vain.” After 127 years of heavily subsidized effort by scientists all over the world to create even the most basic rudiments of life, they are still batting an embarrassing zero. In any other scientific endeavor, reason would dictate it is time to call in the dogs and water down the fire. But when it comes to Darwinian logic, as Dawson noted in 1873, “here also we are required to admit as a general principle what is contrary to experience.”

Dawson’s second fallacy was the gap that separates vegetable and animal life. “These are necessarily the converse of each other, the one deoxidizes and accumulates, the other oxidizes and expends. Only in reproduction or decay does the plant simulate the action of the animal, and the animal never in its simplest forms assumes the functions of the plant. This gap can, I believe, be filled up only by an appeal to our ignorance.” And thus it remains today. If life did evolve as Darwinists claim, it would have had to bridge the gap between plant and animal life at least once, and more likely innumerable times. Lacking one undeniable example of this bridging, science is again batting zero.

The third gap in the knowledge of 1873 was “that between any species of animal or plant and any other species. It is this gap, and this only, which Darwin undertook to fill up by his great work on the origin of species; but, notwithstanding the immense amount of material thus expended, it yawns as wide as ever, since it must be admitted that no case has been ascertained in which individuals of one species have transgressed the limits between it and other species.” Here, too, despite a ceaseless din of scientific protests to the contrary, there remains not a single unquestioned example of one species evolving entirely—not just partially—into another distinct and separate species.

Fred Hoyle once said, "the likelihood of organic molecules spontaneously assembling themselves into a living organism is equal to the likelihood of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and correctly assembling a Boeing 747 - even bacteria, the smallest living organisms, are incredibly complex."





[edit on 2/25/2010 by SquirrelNutz]

reply to post by SquirrelNutz


Fossil records won't show "transitional' forms, becsuse fossil records don't catch "everything" in some neat 'snapshot of history'!!!!

Mitochondrial studies show how evolution progressed....it is NOT "top-secret", folks, if you care to look it up!!!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Yes, MICRO-evolution - no argument there.

Birds developing longer, skinnier beaks, for example. Not Apes (with 48 chromosomes) 'evolving' into Homo Sapien (46) - no way, no how.



[edit on 2/24/2010 by SquirrelNutz]

reply to post by SquirrelNutz


Errrrmmmmm.....Uhhhhhhmmmmmmm....

You obviously confused me, and I thought you were getting it....

(Must be the nuts....)

IF YOU had kept up with modern advances, in genetic science, you would have seen WHY there are chromosome breaks, within the HUMAN Genome, as compared to the Chimpanzee (or other Great Apes that we are distantly related to).

(OUR closest analog relative, in other species, is the Bonobo ape....look it up, please).

While you're doing the due diligent research, may I suggest you ALSO investigate what's happening to the male HUMAN 'X' chromosome.....you will be alternately "shocked and/or awed" (not sure how you'll react, yet...)

While researching, PLEASE look at body types, in mammals, and note the similarities in structure, and the repeating simularities...AND vestigial aspects, as well....AND, remember while researching that SOME species of ocean life are ALSO mammals....

...leads me back....

Our planet Earth has a long history of lifeforms, some that we know because of fossilization, and our ability to dig them up, and interpret them, based on strata location, and OTHER scientific disciplines that mesh together, in order to give us this richness of understandsing that makes it possible to attempt to comprend the compexity.

AND diversity, of not only the life that we can observe, and record, today, but to see what HAS HAPPENED before we Humans ever walked this planet.


ALL SPECIES transition....even us, but it is NOT always clear and evident in every fossil discovery....just does NOT work that way!!!!

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by nophun

 

If you want to get real technical, where are the transitional fish with no lungs to fish with lungs?

I thought about this, and did not know of anything of the subject
Lucky for you I has the interents

Lungs evolved in fish so yes .. the fossil records show fish with.. with lungs/without/both.

You must feel like you just ran your own head into a wall.

Tiktaalik had primitive lungs as well as gills.
en.wikipedia.org...

I could add a bunch of ancient fish with lungs because they seem pretty common so lets move on to..

Lungfish
en.wikipedia.org...

Oh also ..

meet Acanthostega.
en.wikipedia.org...
365 million year old w/ legs, gill, lungs and relative of Tiktaalik. (obviously)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/282f8664cdd5.jpg[/atsimg]

I think he is cute






[edit on 25-2-2010 by nophun]

reply to post by nophun


There also exists, still alive today, a species indigenous to Austrailia, I believe....the "lungfish". It has gills, of course, as a fresh-water fish....BUT, when stressed by ever-shallowing and diminshing pools, over thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of years' time, adapted, in order to survive, to breathing air too, when necessary. gulpoing it, fromthe surface....the esophagus (we all have one) adapted capillary blood vessels,,,,preliminary to the lung formation we know today....

IT IS gradual, and subtle, usually, the way evolution works.

I would say this is a great example of HOW a species adapted, generation over generation, as the ones who randomly mutated to adapt to the altering environmnetal conditions, over hundreds of years, measured by the orbit of the Earth, versus the gestational period of the species involved...and we ALL KNOW that many other species, besides Humans, can have life-cycles much shorter than what we are used to in OUR lifespans....

AND thus, stems the problem of perception, time-scale-wise.....from our Human viewpoint.

THINK about it, please.




[edit on 25 February 2010 by weedwhacker]

I have the lungfish wiki page linked the in my post

I remember hearing about the lung fish before but it still is not a great "transitional fish" at least to show gills to lungs.

I was actually surprised I have never been asked about lungs before his post. it is always the eye or wings, both are way simpler then creationist can ever imagine .. so they deny it

God did it .. obviously.

reply to post by nophun


Great....your avatar is nice, but off scale....Mars is too big, relative to Earth,

Is this "Off-Topic"????

Am I being too picky??

Am I too persnickety???

Am I Mr. Monk?????

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do I keep typing backwards??? What's that all about???

I have to go edit my posts....maybe it's the keyboard????

Am I dyslexic???

I didn't used to be...is that poor grammar????

Am I suddenly channelling Andy Rooney???

Are my eyebrows bushy?????

Someone, please (whispering, mouthing the word....'help' ME!!!)

OK....strike that, reverse it....leave it 'stet', though....

I leave everything 'stet'...but not always

(IF you know not what that means, please look it up....your lesson plan for the day....)

Will a Moderator not find this as humorous, as intended....and choose to delete it as "OFF TOPIC"?...sending it to that "Never Never Land" that no one ever visits??? Only time will tell.....but if deleted then NO ONE will "tell".....



[edit on 25 February 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
Yes, MICRO-evolution - no argument there.

Birds developing longer, skinnier beaks, for example. Not Apes (with 48 chromosomes) 'evolving' into Homo Sapien (46) - no way, no how.

It's been known for a very long time now that chromosomes 2A and 2B fused into human chromosome 2. There's undeniable evidence for it. How else can you explain the telomere sequences in the middle(ish) part of human chromosome 2? How else can you explain the fact that human chromosome 2 has 2 centromeres?




On the left human chromosome 2. Next to it chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. Sequence wise (codon for codon) human chromosome 2 = chimpanzee chromosomes 2A + 2B

[edit on 25-2-2010 by rhinoceros]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Just to be fair to Texans, I would suggest giving the same poll to any other state, and I doubt if the results would be very different!

reply to post by nophun




reply to post by weedwhacker




Still waiting for those fish/monkey creatures/fossils.

Perhaps that missing link thing between humans and monkeys?



All your fish links prove is that at one point in time there was/is a fish that has lungs.

You can't prove that said fish started with no lungs then developed them.

If you could, you would have transitional creatures/fossils.



[edit on 2/25/2010 by Lemon.Fresh]

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh




What's missing?

Notice that A is the modern chimpanzee and we did not evolve from them, however B is Australopithecus africanus, one of our direct ancestors. And on we go.. undeniable evidence of change. Also try to understand that every being on this planet is transitional..

[edit on 25-2-2010 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

 

What's missing?

Notice that A is the modern chimpanzee and we did not evolve from them, however B is Australopithecus africanus, one of our direct ancestors. And on we go.. undeniable evidence of change. Also try to understand that every being on this planet is transitional..

[edit on 25-2-2010 by rhinoceros]

All that proves is that there are mammals that have similar bone structure.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

 

What's missing?

Notice that A is the modern chimpanzee and we did not evolve from them, however B is Australopithecus africanus, one of our direct ancestors. And on we go.. undeniable evidence of change. Also try to understand that every being on this planet is transitional..

[edit on 25-2-2010 by rhinoceros]

All that proves is that there are mammals that have similar bone structure.

How brainwashed are you? So tell me.. Why is it that we haven't found any 2,6 million year old skulls that look exactly like ours? Why is it that when we encounter a more recent hominid fossil it resembles us more than the ones that are older than it is?

[edit on 25-2-2010 by rhinoceros]

THIS IS IN THE PROPER FORUM, even if it went off what I intended, iniiatially...'

BUT, keep bringin' it!!!!

Love the discourse, so far....

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


fish/monkey .. Stop this please.

You are an idiot. Anyone that has going to grade school in the past 15 year is laughing at you right now.

Why do you not understand SMALL changes happen over millions of years.
There is no monkey/fish you moron. primates are hundreds of millions of years AFTER the first life on earth for forming.

If we did find a monkeyfish, it supports GOD more then Natural Selection!

SMALL CHANGES OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS ... for the love of god why can you not understand this.

This is NOT a complete time line or trying to be one it is just a example.
(Using some cool ass animals (my favorites ldo) )

530,000,000 years ago.
Pikaia
This little guy is Canadian so obviously gets added to my list.
Oh yeah and .. The oldest known ancestor of vertebrates, he belongs on anyone's list.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/46649d4edcf7.jpg[/atsimg]

375,000,000 years ago.
Tiktaalik
This guy kicks ass . and that is why I keep bringing him up
He is a tetrapodomorph ! fish/tetrapod! okay okay .. I am stretching sort of but this is as close as we get to a monkeyfish (also he Canadian so +1)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/53e3b61fb993.jpg[/atsimg]

365,000,000 years ago
Acanthostega
Legs man! I have already showed why this guy kicks ass. Having limbs making him the first terapod land bound top his list of cool stuff
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/282f8664cdd5.jpg[/atsimg]

312,000,000
Hylonomus
Then reptiles NOT monkeys!This guy is the earliest confirmed reptile (not amphibian)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2134221722b8.jpg[/atsimg]

256,000,000
Phthinosuchus
Enter therapsids .. Where is your god now! these guys are mammal like reptile.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/828ae2c39870.jpg[/atsimg]
220,000,000
Repenomamus
If you guessed mammails next you would be correct. What you think is next?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f6340a0ce245.jpg[/atsimg]

80,000,000 years ago.
MONKEYFISH !
HOLY SH..!
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/70183be1d1d2.jpg[/atsimg]



Okay I am joking Primates meet Carpolestes simpsoni one of the worlds first primate like mammals.. primate like mammals .. sounds like someone I know.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f6cebfcb9600.png[/atsimg]


So there you have it I give to you the Monkeyfish.

If you really think Evolution/Natural Selection means there would be huge jumps from fish to primates or that there should be hybrid combination of animals .. please. for the love of (your) god, please go back to school.



[edit on 25-2-2010 by nophun]