All White People Need To Be Exterminated

[amcon]

1 gene for all differences related to race? For skin pigment, hair density, diet, or immune response to certain diseases? Adaptations to better suit the condtions of the land that race spent the largest portion of their history inhabiting? Ethnic facial features, statistic differences in height, and others.

I think your study of genetics and evoloution needs revision.

we def did not come from apes or monkey... if we did why do they still exist? where is the missing like between the two ? is ti lucey?

[Kratos]

we def did not come from apes or monkey... if we did why do they still exist? where is the missing like between the two ? is ti lucey?

Lucy is a 3.2 million year old example of Australopithecus africanus. No doubt there is clear resembelence to a common chimp. But, although the creature had a, the pelvis and leg bones were almost identical in function with those of modern humans, showing with certainty that these hominids had walked erect. There have been discoveries of afarensis since Lucy. Australopithecines are now thought to be immediate ancestors of the genus Homo, the group to which modern humans belong.
There is no missing link. We have fossil evidence with many links without a break in the chain until you reach modern humans.
It may still be called the "theory" of evoloution, but it's not even debated anymore, evoloution happend.


So how can apes and monkey's still exist? The term is divergent evolution; it is the accumulation of differences between groups which can lead to the formation of new species. Monkey's didn't become us, we branched off from them.

For example is it so hard to imagine a flock of birds, they all look the same. Now imagine half of the flock of birds gets lost in a storm and lands on an island somewhere. The birds once ate berries, but there are no berries on this island. There are plenty of worms. So these birds stuck on this island scrape by on worms generation after generation. The birds who have longer beaks are better at finding worms and therefore long beaked birds are more likely to live and reproduce. The birds who didn't get lost are still eating berries. Fast forward a few thousand years. Do the two types of birds still look the same?

[amcon]

Lucy is a 3.2 million year old example of Australopithecus africanus. No doubt there is clear resembelence to a common chimp. But, although the creature had a, the pelvis and leg bones were almost identical in function with those of modern humans, showing with certainty that these hominids had walked erect. There have been discoveries of afarensis since Lucy. Australopithecines are now thought to be immediate ancestors of the genus Homo, the group to which modern humans belong.
There is no missing link. We have fossil evidence with many links without a break in the chain until you reach modern humans.
It may still be called the "theory" of evoloution, but it's not even debated anymore, evoloution happend.


So how can apes and monkey's still exist? The term is divergent evolution; it is the accumulation of differences between groups which can lead to the formation of new species. Monkey's didn't become us, we branched off from them.

For example is it so hard to imagine a flock of birds, they all look the same. Now imagine half of the flock of birds gets lost in a storm and lands on an island somewhere. The birds once ate berries, but there are no berries on this island. There are plenty of worms. So these birds stuck on this island scrape by on worms generation after generation. The birds who have longer beaks are better at finding worms and therefore long beaked birds are more likely to live and reproduce. The birds who didn't get lost are still eating berries. Fast forward a few thousand years. Do the two types of birds still look the same?

pft!!!.... lol

i will look for the lucey link - but it goes something like this:

guy gets money to go looking for missing link... three days before he is to get him money turned off - he finds a chimp body (head is missing) over a mile away they found a human head from a woman... as all good evolutionist would deduct, a saber tooth tiger(i added this part for effect to the funny story) or some other carniviours animal tore the head off and ate it a mile away... wait if the animal ate it how was it found as a fossil??? any ways i will keep going on the "missing link" story... wait do i really need too - naaa it is already too hard to believe - WAY HARDER THAN A CRATOR WHO DEVELOPED US NOT evolution... (when i find the full story not my abrivated version i will post it for you...)

more proof of evolution (oops the top evolutionists dont even believe in it - or at least cant prove it)

Famous Evolutionists Admit There is No Proof!

These experts know that there is no evidence for any changing! They say there is fossil evidence and there isn't! Luther Sunderland wrote this book Darwin's Enigma. He wrote to all of the major universities [and] to the museums (or visited them) and he said, “Would you please show me the evidence you have for evolution?” They said, “Well, we don't have it here, it must be somewhere else.”

This I find hard to believe. Did Sunderland think about researching peer reviewed science publications?

[.....]

Luther wrote to the British Museum of Natural History. The largest fossil collection in the world and asked Colin Paterson [sic]. He said, “Mr. Paterson [sic], I read your book about evolution but I noticed that you didn't show us any missing links. Why not? Where are the missing links? Colin Paterson [sic] wrote back and said, “I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living (now, that's interesting, why would you include a living one as a missing link?) .....

Straw man Just because a type of organism is the ancestor of another type does not automatically equate with extinction

..... [Patterson] said, “if I knew of any I certainly would have included them. I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil.”

[Kratos]

Famous Evolutionists Admit There is No Proof!

These experts know that there is no evidence for any changing! They say there is fossil evidence and there isn't! Luther Sunderland wrote this book Darwin's Enigma. He wrote to all of the major universities [and] to the museums (or visited them) and he said, “Would you please show me the evidence you have for evolution?” They said, “Well, we don't have it here, it must be somewhere else.”

This I find hard to believe. Did Sunderland think about researching peer reviewed science publications?

[.....]

Luther wrote to the British Museum of Natural History. The largest fossil collection in the world and asked Colin Paterson [sic]. He said, “Mr. Paterson [sic], I read your book about evolution but I noticed that you didn't show us any missing links. Why not? Where are the missing links? Colin Paterson [sic] wrote back and said, “I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living (now, that's interesting, why would you include a living one as a missing link?) .....

Straw man Just because a type of organism is the ancestor of another type does not automatically equate with extinction

..... [Patterson] said, “if I knew of any I certainly would have included them. I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil.”

I don't know why you're painting Luther Sutherland to be some kind of athority of evoloution. He wasn't a scientist but an Aerospace engineer and Jesus lover.

That book is a peice of toilet paper.

Sunderland's search for the answers through interviews is nothing but a mess. His comprehension of basic science is so limited that he had no hope of understanding the answers to his questions.

Wow, everyone loves a good book where the author trys to represent misinterpretations as fact.

[amcon]

I don't know why you're painting Luther Sutherland to be some kind of athority of evoloution. He wasn't a scientist but an Aerospace engineer and Jesus lover.

That book is a peice of toilet paper.

Sunderland's search for the answers through interviews is nothing but a mess. His comprehension of basic science is so limited that he had no hope of understanding the answers to his questions.

Wow, everyone loves a good book where the author trys to represent misinterpretations as fact.

humm in one qoute you said a guy was un qulified because of his state education... the next guy was a aerospece engineer - opposite ends of the educational spectrum both are not good enough for you ???

BUT, your own knowledge is better than both

and of coarse they are "Jesus" lovers, they love their creator... why wouldnt they?

[Kratos]

humm in one qoute you said a guy was un qulified because of his state education... the next guy was a aerospece engineer - opposite ends of the educational spectrum both are not good enough for you ???

BUT, your own knowledge is better than both

and of coarse they are "Jesus" lovers, they love their creator... why wouldnt they?

that's correct, both are not good enough
would you have an engineer as your doctor?
an engineer is not qualified to write a book on chemistry or molecular bio, why would he be qualified to write a book on evoloution?

and yes my knowledge is better than either or both as my education was in science.

[amcon]

Lucy is a 3.2 million year old example of Australopithecus africanus. No doubt there is clear resembelence to a common chimp. But, although the creature had a, the pelvis and leg bones were almost identical in function with those of modern humans, showing with certainty that these hominids had walked erect. There have been discoveries of afarensis since Lucy. Australopithecines are now thought to be immediate ancestors of the genus Homo, the group to which modern humans belong.
There is no missing link. We have fossil evidence with many links without a break in the chain until you reach modern humans.
It may still be called the "theory" of evoloution, but it's not even debated anymore, evoloution happend.


So how can apes and monkey's still exist? The term is divergent evolution; it is the accumulation of differences between groups which can lead to the formation of new species. Monkey's didn't become us, we branched off from them.

For example is it so hard to imagine a flock of birds, they all look the same. Now imagine half of the flock of birds gets lost in a storm and lands on an island somewhere. The birds once ate berries, but there are no berries on this island. There are plenty of worms. So these birds stuck on this island scrape by on worms generation after generation. The birds who have longer beaks are better at finding worms and therefore long beaked birds are more likely to live and reproduce. The birds who didn't get lost are still eating berries. Fast forward a few thousand years. Do the two types of birds still look the same?

btw where did you get that info above???? you dont still believe it do you?

[JiGGaMaN]

btw where did you get that info above???? you dont still believe it do you?

i find it funny you say theres not enough proof for evolution yet you believe that the bible is sufficient evidence for jesus.

[amcon]

i find it funny you say theres not enough proof for evolution yet you believe that the bible is sufficient evidence for jesus.

yes, the bible and many many other writings of Jesus

[Kratos]

btw where did you get that info above???? you dont still believe it do you?

I got the info from my brain with the exception I had to look up exactly how old the skeleton is at the institute of human orgins web site. I've taken grad classes in evoloution.

Second question, ummm yes.

[amcon]

I got the info from my brain with the exception I had to look up exactly how old the skeleton is at the institute of human orgins web site. I've taken grad classes in evoloution.

Second question, ummm yes.

you didnt look at any of the info i posted .... cause if you did you would find out how siencetist discredit the above info...

knowledge is power bro