More Evolution Evidence

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:34 pm

and you are doing better by posting criticisms and personal attacks?? feeling a might superior to eveyone else???

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:12 pm

Yeah...I'm enjoying myself.

FreeThinker · Post by **FreeThinker** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:08 am

Hey all, here is some more detailed info on this important find:

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/ana ... _2006.html

Good stuff, the picture human evolution continues to fill in. Check it out and enjoy!

stan · Post by **stan** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:46 pm

At Aramis, the lone hominoid and largest primate was Ar. ramidus(109 of 6,156 identified specimens so far) (White et al. 2006:888, emphasis added).

This raises an issue that the creationists bring up all the time:
They say that all the fossils that "prove" human evolution can fit into
a small box.

THe above quote from the url posted above by Freethinker suggests a large number.
By specimens do they mean individuals or bones?

And what is the quantity of pre HSS fossils world wide?

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:11 pm

Creationists say a lot of things.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:45 am

Again, headline news about evolution of different species...this time snakes.

I bet arch's "cold" is getting worse.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... l0420.html

NEWS online print edition

Print ArticleEmail ArticleMost PopularBigger TypeSmaller TypePhone AlertsRSS FeedsFossil a sign snakes evolved on land

Malcolm Ritter
Associated Press
Apr. 20, 2006 12:00 AM

NEW YORK - A fossil find in Argentina has revealed a two-legged creature that is the most primitive snake known, a discovery that promises to fire up the scientific debate about whether snakes evolved on land or in the sea.

The snake's anatomy and the location of the fossil show that it lived on land, researchers said, adding evidence to the argument that snakes evolved on land.

Snakes are thought to have evolved from four-legged lizards, losing their legs over time. But scientists have long debated whether those ancestral lizards were land-based or marine creatures.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:39 pm

ha. ha.ha. ha.

why should i say anything, when your example continues to prove my thinking. people see the evidence then attribute it to something other than the scriptures.

actually, i may have bronchitis, i just haven't taken the time to go to the doctor but have been waiting it out.

This raises an issue that the creationists bring up all the time:
They say that all the fossils that "prove" human evolution can fit into
a small box

what fossils do, is prove the Bible right. it takes a lot of imagination to fit the fossil to the evolutionary theory and the evolutionary theory to the fossils.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:27 pm

It obviously isn't bronchitis.

It seems to me as if you are having brain cramps.

Drink lots of water and read something besides your bible. Your brain needs exercise.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:41 pm

It obviously isn't bronchitis

nice to know that you are an all seeing all knowing doctor on top of being a dominator of forums.

It seems to me as if you are having brain cramps

i wouldn't quit your day job. also it is nice to know you can stay on topic and defend your position

another problem with the evolutionary theory is that it can't account for the existence of animal instincts. since it is a process, how would it know if it got instincts wrong and it needed to evolve more to make changes?

how would it kow if it was right and could move on to other species and develope them?/ it is a non-thinking, feeling process with no capibilities to determine what is right , wrong or in between.

even logically, evolution does not make sense nor can it explain any of the details because it is incapable of knowing anything or make decisions concerning what is good or bad.

let's face it, you and all the other evolutionists are just building on sand, you have nothing for a foundation nor strength to withstand the truth

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:53 pm

We're taking up a collection to buy you a get-well gift.

As soon as we scrape up a few more donors it will be in the mail to you.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 6:57 pm

thank you, i could always use another t-shirt

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:28 pm

Archaeologist, when you say animal instincts, are you including humans in that statement? Human babies are born with a lot of instinctive behavior. Get well soon. BTW - I'm just asking for clarification, I don't want to enter into a religious argument.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:41 am

no i was strictly limiting that example to animals, since each animal have distinct characteristics especially when it comes to having offspring. turtles bury their eggs in sand, salmon in their original stream, chickens sit on theirs. there are quite a variety of methods considering evolution is very non-thinking and non-feeling and would never know when it got it right or wrong.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:09 am

An animal born without those instincts doesn't live long enough to reproduce or isn't able to reproduce. Therefore that trait is not passed on to the next generation. That is the essence of evolution and it can be proven. It doesn't require any thought on the part of evolution, which is a process, not an entity which needs to think. Pretty simple actually.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:34 am

I recall reading where the only instinct that human babies are born with is to suck.

Something arch never grew out of.

Archaeologica.org

More Evolution Evidence

More Detailed Info on this Important Find