It's not about the number either. I explained it to you but you just didn't understand. I mean I said humans have different number of chromosomes than their ancestors yet they are their ancestors. Our chromosome 2 developed from fusion of Hominidae chromosomes 2A and 2B is a falsifiable claim.
Every now and then, chromosomes fuse. This fusion occurs as sperm and eggs develop, as pairs of chromosomes fold over each other and swap chunks of DNA. Sometimes two different chromosomes grab onto each other and then fail to separate.
Scientists have observed both humans and mammals with fused chromosomes. Chromosomes typically have distinctive stretches of DNA in their center and at their ends. From time to time, scientists will find an individual that’s short a chromosome, but one of the chromosomes it retains now has an odd structure, with chromosome endings near the middle and other peculiar features.
This might seem like a fantastic mutation–something like a human and a horse being joined into a centaur. Remarkably, however, fused chromosomes are real, and there are surprising number of normal, healthy people carrying them.
If humans and apes did indeed share a common ancestor, then it would make sense that two chromosomes fused in our ancestors. The rise of genome sequencing allowed them to test that hypothesis. They found that human chromosome two bears the hallmarks of an ancient chromosome fusion, with remnants of chromosome ends nestled at its core. In 2005, it became possible to test the hypothesis again, when a team of scientists sequenced the chimpanzee genome and could compare it to the human genome. The chimp genome team were able to match human chromosome two to two unfused chromosomes in the chimpanzee genome.
Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 164. (Read 108173 times)
Quote
First of all there is no such thing as a missing link. The amount of genetic material we share with other species depends upon what you compare. Bananas share 60% of the same DNA as humans, that doesn't mean we evolved from bananas. Although humans and pigs did have a common ancestor, it was long long ago. This doesn't disprove evolution whatsoever.
Those silly things that are calling themselves "scientists" Are thinking there is some "secret" mystical connection with pigs and human. "secret" spooky religious language.
https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/pigs-and-humans-more-closely-related-thought-according-genetic-analysis
You cannot ignore the issue that pig is twice as close in dna that chimpansee. They have to have some answer to that. Evolutionary answer, how pig is related to primates. Those "scientists" knows that. They might be confused but at least they know what is logic. You don't.
Quote
What evolutionary story might this tell about the relationship of pigs and primates? For now, phylogeneticists can only speculate. But it goes to show that our relationships to our animal brethren are often closer than first appearances may suggest. Despite the great diversity of life, there is a string connecting us all together — a string that geneticists are only beginning to learn how to unravel.
There is a string of connection. He forgot to tell - ITS GOD. Yes genetics are slow to learn that atheism is folly.
If not directly disproving evolution, that discovery shows that only 2% ( or even less) of human dna is used to distinguish between the kinds. Pig is not a primate, its not close in look to primates, it does not behave like primate. So genetic should have nothing with evolution.
First of all dna sharing does not prove god, in fact it disproves god. Why would god do that? He purposely made animals to share dna with other animals to confuse us?
You obviously don't know why scientists say that we share a common ancestor with the great apes, is not just a number and a percentage. I will explain why it is that the DNA we share is such a positive identifier of our mutual ancestry. Lets focus for a moment on chromosome 2. All Hominidae have 24 chromosomes, except for humans. We have only 23 chromosomes; if humans were really related to the other Hominidae why would we have a different number of chromosomes?
Well, here is the testable and falsifiable part of the evidence based approach we use to determine ancestry. One might hypothesize that if we have 23, but our proposed ancestors all have 24, that there could potentially be a loss of a chromosome. This would not be altogether compelling, because it might come off as just writing off the differences to square the circle. What would be really immensely compelling would be if two of the ancestral chromosomes fused. If this were the case then there would be consistency between total genetic elements, but more importantly there would be a conformational symmetry between one of our chromosomes and two of these non-human chromosomes in such a way that it would be profoundly improbable for the symmetry to be the result of random chance alone. Think about it, if we weren't directly related then we would have had to develop a single chromosome from our lineage which matched two distinct chromosomes from another unrelated lineage. The probability of that is astoundingly low even over an immense time interval.
And what do we see in chromsome 2: A vestigial centromere, inverted telomeric repeat sequences, sequence homology, everything we would expect from a relatively recent fusion of two chromosomes.
Our chromosome 2 is the perfect reference point to assuage the most common sorts of denial of this sort of ancestral relationship - that we were just filling in gaps, and that we couldn't really let ourselves be wrong because we would just pick up the pieces and put them into place. The claim that our chromosome 2 developed from fusion of Hominidae chromosomes 2A and 2B is a falsifiable claim, and in fact if research had not so strongly asserted the validity of the claim it is likely that we would see different avenues of research into human ancestry.
Sure, we could bring up other unifying traits of the Hominidae to support the claim. Broad incisors, underdeveloped canines, legs that are longer than arms, males larger than females on average, lacking a tail, opposable thumbs, a distinctly big toe, lack of ischial callosities, upright or semi-upright skeletal structure, dental formula, omnivory, complex social behavior, loss of tree dwelling behavior outside of the basal Orangutan group. None of these is particularly interesting alone, but together they are very compelling.
As I said before the amount of genetic material we share with other species depends upon what you compare.
Scientists have discovered about 20,000 mammalian genes that encode proteins with similar basic functions. So if you compare the protein-encoding portion of our DNA we have a lot in common with a lot of mammals.
"Mammals have most of the same genes for similar biochemical and physiological functions. If you look at the details of the genes … there'll be differences between them, but they'll still be doing the same kind of function," says Moran.
"It's a little bit like having a Ford or a Holden — it's still obviously a car but a slightly different version."
"If we compare really closely related species, like a human and chimpanzee, we can still see the similarity between these rapidly changing sequences. If you move further away to the more distantly related pig, so many changes in the DNA will have occurred that it is no longer possible to recognize that the sequences were ever similar.
"Depending upon what it is that you are comparing you can say 'Yes, there's a very high degree of similarity, for example between a human and a pig protein coding sequence', but if you compare rapidly evolving non-coding sequences from a similar location in the genome, you may not be able to recognize any similarity at all. This means that blanket comparisons of all DNA sequences between species are not very meaningful."
But it goes to show that our relationships to our animal brethren are often closer than first appearances may suggest. Despite the great diversity of life, there is a string connecting us all together — a string that geneticists are only beginning to learn how to unravel.
The article itself explains it, I don't really know what your doubts are.
''You cannot ignore the issue that pig is twice as close in dna that chimpansee'' That's wrong, I don't know where you got that from
All that talk about chromosomes is silly. We have the same number of chromosomes like a
Gorrila have the same number of chromosomes like a wild rabbit. Its a random shit that you make something with your silly religious belief.
Quote
As I said before the amount of genetic material we share with other species depends upon what you compare.
In other words, the reality is not so much relevant as your assumptions. If reality is double checking you - fuck reality, its important what you chose to be reality and what is not a reality.
Quote
First of all there is no such thing as a missing link.
Finally we fully agreed on something. You sir, are correct.
Quote
We share a common ancestor with other primates, please read and inform yourself before making assumptions
Oh..... and evolution is not an assumption? So... before making an assumption that evolution is true make sure its evidenced properly.
We share a common ancestor with other primates, please read and inform yourself before making assumptions
If we us an academics approach evolution is real, they have proof of the steps and progress of human from apes, however from any religious perspectives there is no reason tho believes that as in any holy bible they always wrote that man is god creation. So which one are you feeling now being religious or academics?
I would believe the bible rather than these pathetic scientists that are talking against religions and saying that people came from apes. Well try to prove it then by studying it, put them into a studying cubicle and let's see how apes can evolve into human being.
If we us an academics approach evolution is real, they have proof of the steps and progress of human from apes, however from any religious perspectives there is no reason tho believes that as in any holy bible they always wrote that man is god creation. So which one are you feeling now being religious or academics?
No they don't. They have a process that is relative to itself. That is the only way evolution is real. Their process happens to include some of the things of reality within it. But when you add all of reality, evolution fails entirely.
Reality doesn't depend on how you feel. If it did, there would never be any death except for people who wanted it.
If we us an academics approach evolution is real, they have proof of the steps and progress of human from apes, however from any religious perspectives there is no reason tho believes that as in any holy bible they always wrote that man is god creation. So which one are you feeling now being religious or academics?
Quote
First of all there is no such thing as a missing link. The amount of genetic material we share with other species depends upon what you compare. Bananas share 60% of the same DNA as humans, that doesn't mean we evolved from bananas. Although humans and pigs did have a common ancestor, it was long long ago. This doesn't disprove evolution whatsoever.
Those silly things that are calling themselves "scientists" Are thinking there is some "secret" mystical connection with pigs and human. "secret" spooky religious language.
https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/pigs-and-humans-more-closely-related-thought-according-genetic-analysis
You cannot ignore the issue that pig is twice as close in dna that chimpansee. They have to have some answer to that. Evolutionary answer, how pig is related to primates. Those "scientists" knows that. They might be confused but at least they know what is logic. You don't.
Quote
What evolutionary story might this tell about the relationship of pigs and primates? For now, phylogeneticists can only speculate. But it goes to show that our relationships to our animal brethren are often closer than first appearances may suggest. Despite the great diversity of life, there is a string connecting us all together — a string that geneticists are only beginning to learn how to unravel.
There is a string of connection. He forgot to tell - ITS GOD. Yes genetics are slow to learn that atheism is folly.
If not directly disproving evolution, that discovery shows that only 2% ( or even less) of human dna is used to distinguish between the kinds. Pig is not a primate, its not close in look to primates, it does not behave like primate. So genetic should have nothing with evolution.
First of all dna sharing does not prove god, in fact it disproves god. Why would god do that? He purposely made animals to share dna with other animals to confuse us?
You obviously don't know why scientists say that we share a common ancestor with the great apes, is not just a number and a percentage. I will explain why it is that the DNA we share is such a positive identifier of our mutual ancestry. Lets focus for a moment on chromosome 2. All Hominidae have 24 chromosomes, except for humans. We have only 23 chromosomes; if humans were really related to the other Hominidae why would we have a different number of chromosomes?
Well, here is the testable and falsifiable part of the evidence based approach we use to determine ancestry. One might hypothesize that if we have 23, but our proposed ancestors all have 24, that there could potentially be a loss of a chromosome. This would not be altogether compelling, because it might come off as just writing off the differences to square the circle. What would be really immensely compelling would be if two of the ancestral chromosomes fused. If this were the case then there would be consistency between total genetic elements, but more importantly there would be a conformational symmetry between one of our chromosomes and two of these non-human chromosomes in such a way that it would be profoundly improbable for the symmetry to be the result of random chance alone. Think about it, if we weren't directly related then we would have had to develop a single chromosome from our lineage which matched two distinct chromosomes from another unrelated lineage. The probability of that is astoundingly low even over an immense time interval.
And what do we see in chromsome 2: A vestigial centromere, inverted telomeric repeat sequences, sequence homology, everything we would expect from a relatively recent fusion of two chromosomes.
Our chromosome 2 is the perfect reference point to assuage the most common sorts of denial of this sort of ancestral relationship - that we were just filling in gaps, and that we couldn't really let ourselves be wrong because we would just pick up the pieces and put them into place. The claim that our chromosome 2 developed from fusion of Hominidae chromosomes 2A and 2B is a falsifiable claim, and in fact if research had not so strongly asserted the validity of the claim it is likely that we would see different avenues of research into human ancestry.
Sure, we could bring up other unifying traits of the Hominidae to support the claim. Broad incisors, underdeveloped canines, legs that are longer than arms, males larger than females on average, lacking a tail, opposable thumbs, a distinctly big toe, lack of ischial callosities, upright or semi-upright skeletal structure, dental formula, omnivory, complex social behavior, loss of tree dwelling behavior outside of the basal Orangutan group. None of these is particularly interesting alone, but together they are very compelling.
As I said before the amount of genetic material we share with other species depends upon what you compare.
Scientists have discovered about 20,000 mammalian genes that encode proteins with similar basic functions. So if you compare the protein-encoding portion of our DNA we have a lot in common with a lot of mammals.
"Mammals have most of the same genes for similar biochemical and physiological functions. If you look at the details of the genes … there'll be differences between them, but they'll still be doing the same kind of function," says Moran.
"It's a little bit like having a Ford or a Holden — it's still obviously a car but a slightly different version."
"If we compare really closely related species, like a human and chimpanzee, we can still see the similarity between these rapidly changing sequences. If you move further away to the more distantly related pig, so many changes in the DNA will have occurred that it is no longer possible to recognize that the sequences were ever similar.
"Depending upon what it is that you are comparing you can say 'Yes, there's a very high degree of similarity, for example between a human and a pig protein coding sequence', but if you compare rapidly evolving non-coding sequences from a similar location in the genome, you may not be able to recognize any similarity at all. This means that blanket comparisons of all DNA sequences between species are not very meaningful."
But it goes to show that our relationships to our animal brethren are often closer than first appearances may suggest. Despite the great diversity of life, there is a string connecting us all together — a string that geneticists are only beginning to learn how to unravel.
The article itself explains it, I don't really know what your doubts are.
''You cannot ignore the issue that pig is twice as close in dna that chimpansee'' That's wrong, I don't know where you got that from
Quote
First of all there is no such thing as a missing link. The amount of genetic material we share with other species depends upon what you compare. Bananas share 60% of the same DNA as humans, that doesn't mean we evolved from bananas. Although humans and pigs did have a common ancestor, it was long long ago. This doesn't disprove evolution whatsoever.
Those silly things that are calling themselves "scientists" Are thinking there is some "secret" mystical connection with pigs and human. "secret" spooky religious language.
https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/pigs-and-humans-more-closely-related-thought-according-genetic-analysis
You cannot ignore the issue that pig is twice as close in dna than chimpansee. They have to have some answer to that. Evolutionary answer, how pig is related to primates. Those "scientists" knows that. They might be confused but at least they know what is logic. You don't.
Quote
What evolutionary story might this tell about the relationship of pigs and primates? For now, phylogeneticists can only speculate. But it goes to show that our relationships to our animal brethren are often closer than first appearances may suggest. Despite the great diversity of life, there is a string connecting us all together — a string that geneticists are only beginning to learn how to unravel.
There is a string of connection. He forgot to tell - ITS GOD. Yes genetics are slow to learn that atheism is folly.
If not directly disproving evolution, that discovery shows that only 2% ( or even less) of human dna is used to distinguish between the kinds. Pig is not a primate, its not close in look to primates, it does not behave like primate. So genetic should have nothing with evolution.
I never believed in the theory of evolution even before it was taught to us by our teacher. Saying evidences proving that we are all indeed came to monkeys and just evolved as humans. Because of the likeness of our appearance or whatever it is. But just a common sense, monkeys in the zoo, in the jungle were not yet evolved into humans. Same as when a human bears a child, it is not a monkey but a human.
Modern evolution is based on the idea that everything has been happening in the past like it does today. Yet even only a few thousands of years ago, things may have been so different, or cataclysms so great, that everything we calculate about evolution simply could not have happened the way they did. The flaws in evolution are tremendous. The whole thing is a hoax, and science fiction at its best.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JDzlhW3XTMExtraordinary images that show just how similar we are to our closest ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Extraordinary-images-just-similar-closest-living-relative--bon...
4 Sep 2013 - Extraordinary images that show just how similar we are to our closest living relative – the bonobo: Affectionate primates share 98.7% of human ..
Quote
We have our own species. Monkeys are monkeys as Humans are humans. If evolution is true then why scientist cannot find a living proof or a missing link? They are all just theories and stuff.
I have found a missing LINK!!! Evolution is true!! Im a true believer now. Here is my logic:
Chimpansee -96% of human dna
Human -100% of human dna
The missing link have 98% of human dna. Right in the middle of both. Its a.......... pig.
Find 2 differences in the picture of almost 98% human in dna. That pig is probably thinking about the quantum mechanics.
Yes. I can say that me and my voodoo doll have 99% resemblance in look. Lets just assume that my doll is my homunculus child ok? Do you agree with that? Thats how absurdal evolution speculation go.
The missing link is the ones here denying evolution.
Lol. I've heard about alternatives from people who don't approve of evolution and it seems to be that there are bigger voids in thoae theories than evolution. There may still be a lot left for science to explain but evolution is the most logical version that we have right now.
You sound like - "hey this poop smells, it needs little clean up, but you know what stinks more? Rotten donkey. I would rather eat poop."
Why would you even consider poop to be eaten? Similiarly why would you consider evolution as a science.
Its extremely logical for "scientist" to wonder that there must be some evolutionary link between human, pig and monkey. I kid you not. They actualy think about it. One can "wonder" about it for ages. Thats a hard nut to crack.
Yeah they have got a loooot to answer, that is what we could agree upon. For example - why there are still claims of "fossils" proven to be fraud in the text books. That should be answered. Criminaly.
Listen... you guys just seek excuses to be atheists. You dont have to have excuses. Its a free will.
You guys are highly evolved "scientificly aware modern society". I am a little behind. I could be a missing link, yeah... probably.
And yes I deny the evolution as self contradictory. I am the missing link of brain evidence, where the last stage - the evolutionist have none. I have at least some. I am a living transitional fossil of proving that brain exist.
First of all there is no such thing as a missing link. The amount of genetic material we share with other species depends upon what you compare. Bananas share 60% of the same DNA as humans, that doesn't mean we evolved from bananas. Although humans and pigs did have a common ancestor, it was long long ago. This doesn't disprove evolution whatsoever.
Modern evolution is based on the idea that everything has been happening in the past like it does today. Yet even only a few thousands of years ago, things may have been so different, or cataclysms so great, that everything we calculate about evolution simply could not have happened the way they did. The flaws in evolution are tremendous. The whole thing is a hoax, and science fiction at its best.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JDzlhW3XTMExtraordinary images that show just how similar we are to our closest ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Extraordinary-images-just-similar-closest-living-relative--bon...
4 Sep 2013 - Extraordinary images that show just how similar we are to our closest living relative – the bonobo: Affectionate primates share 98.7% of human ..
Quote
We have our own species. Monkeys are monkeys as Humans are humans. If evolution is true then why scientist cannot find a living proof or a missing link? They are all just theories and stuff.
I have found a missing LINK!!! Evolution is true!! Im a true believer now. Here is my logic:
Chimpansee -96% of human dna
Human -100% of human dna
The missing link have 98% of human dna. Right in the middle of both. Its a.......... pig.
Find 2 differences in the picture of almost 98% human in dna. That pig is probably thinking about the quantum mechanics.
Yes. I can say that me and my voodoo doll have 99% resemblance in look. Lets just assume that my doll is my homunculus child ok? Do you agree with that? Thats how absurdal evolution speculation go.
The missing link is the ones here denying evolution.
Lol. I've heard about alternatives from people who don't approve of evolution and it seems to be that there are bigger voids in thoae theories than evolution. There may still be a lot left for science to explain but evolution is the most logical version that we have right now.
You sound like - "hey this poop smells, it needs little clean up, but you know what stinks more? Rotten donkey. I would rather eat poop."
Why would you even consider poop to be eaten? Similiarly why would you consider evolution as a science.
Its extremely logical for "scientist" to wonder that there must be some evolutionary link between human, pig and monkey. I kid you not. They actualy think about it. One can "wonder" about it for ages. Thats a hard nut to crack.
Yeah they have got a loooot to answer, that is what we could agree upon. For example - why there are still claims of "fossils" proven to be fraud in the text books. That should be answered. Criminaly.
Listen... you guys just seek excuses to be atheists. You dont have to have excuses. Its a free will.
You guys are highly evolved "scientificly aware modern society". I am a little behind. I could be a missing link, yeah... probably.
And yes I deny the evolution as self contradictory. I am the missing link of brain evidence, where the last stage - the evolutionist have none. I have at least some. I am a living transitional fossil of proving that brain exist.
Modern evolution is based on the idea that everything has been happening in the past like it does today. Yet even only a few thousands of years ago, things may have been so different, or cataclysms so great, that everything we calculate about evolution simply could not have happened the way they did. The flaws in evolution are tremendous. The whole thing is a hoax, and science fiction at its best.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JDzlhW3XTMExtraordinary images that show just how similar we are to our closest ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Extraordinary-images-just-similar-closest-living-relative--bon...
4 Sep 2013 - Extraordinary images that show just how similar we are to our closest living relative – the bonobo: Affectionate primates share 98.7% of human ..
Quote
We have our own species. Monkeys are monkeys as Humans are humans. If evolution is true then why scientist cannot find a living proof or a missing link? They are all just theories and stuff.
I have found a missing LINK!!! Evolution is true!! Im a true believer now. Here is my logic:
Chimpansee -96% of human dna
Human -100% of human dna
The missing link have 98% of human dna. Right in the middle of both. Its a.......... pig.
Find 2 differences in the picture of almost 98% human in dna. That pig is probably thinking about the quantum mechanics.
Yes. I can say that me and my voodoo doll have 99% resemblance in look. Lets just assume that my doll is my homunculus child ok? Do you agree with that? Thats how absurdal evolution speculation go.
The missing link is the ones here denying evolution.
Lol. I've heard about alternatives from people who don't approve of evolution and it seems to be that there are bigger voids in thoae theories than evolution. There may still be a lot left for science to explain but evolution is the most logical version that we have right now.
Modern evolution is based on the idea that everything has been happening in the past like it does today. Yet even only a few thousands of years ago, things may have been so different, or cataclysms so great, that everything we calculate about evolution simply could not have happened the way they did. The flaws in evolution are tremendous. The whole thing is a hoax, and science fiction at its best.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JDzlhW3XTMExtraordinary images that show just how similar we are to our closest ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Extraordinary-images-just-similar-closest-living-relative--bon...
4 Sep 2013 - Extraordinary images that show just how similar we are to our closest living relative – the bonobo: Affectionate primates share 98.7% of human ..
Quote
We have our own species. Monkeys are monkeys as Humans are humans. If evolution is true then why scientist cannot find a living proof or a missing link? They are all just theories and stuff.
I have found a missing LINK!!! Evolution is true!! Im a true believer now. Here is my logic:
Chimpansee -96% of human dna
Human -100% of human dna
The missing link have 98% of human dna. Right in the middle of both. Its a.......... pig.
Find 2 differences in the picture of almost 98% human in dna. That pig is probably thinking about the quantum mechanics.
Yes. I can say that me and my voodoo doll have 99% resemblance in look. Lets just assume that my doll is my homunculus child ok? Do you agree with that? Thats how absurdal evolution speculation go.
The missing link is the ones here denying evolution.
Modern evolution is based on the idea that everything has been happening in the past like it does today. Yet even only a few thousands of years ago, things may have been so different, or cataclysms so great, that everything we calculate about evolution simply could not have happened the way they did. The flaws in evolution are tremendous. The whole thing is a hoax, and science fiction at its best.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JDzlhW3XTMExtraordinary images that show just how similar we are to our closest ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Extraordinary-images-just-similar-closest-living-relative--bon...
4 Sep 2013 - Extraordinary images that show just how similar we are to our closest living relative – the bonobo: Affectionate primates share 98.7% of human ..
Quote
We have our own species. Monkeys are monkeys as Humans are humans. If evolution is true then why scientist cannot find a living proof or a missing link? They are all just theories and stuff.
I have found a missing LINK!!! Evolution is true!! Im a true believer now. Here is my logic:
Chimpansee -96% of human dna
Human -100% of human dna
The missing link have 98% of human dna. Right in the middle of both. Its a.......... pig.
Find 2 differences in the picture of almost 98% human in dna. That pig is probably thinking about the quantum mechanics.
Yes. I can say that me and my voodoo doll have 99% resemblance in look. Lets just assume that my doll is my homunculus child ok? Do you agree with that? Thats how absurdal evolution speculation go.
Modern evolution is based on the idea that everything has been happening in the past like it does today. Yet even only a few thousands of years ago, things may have been so different, or cataclysms so great, that everything we calculate about evolution simply could not have happened the way they did. The flaws in evolution are tremendous. The whole thing is a hoax, and science fiction at its best.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JDzlhW3XTMExtraordinary images that show just how similar we are to our closest ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Extraordinary-images-just-similar-closest-living-relative--bon...
4 Sep 2013 - Extraordinary images that show just how similar we are to our closest living relative – the bonobo: Affectionate primates share 98.7% of human ..
Modern evolution is based on the idea that everything has been happening in the past like it does today. Yet even only a few thousands of years ago, things may have been so different, or cataclysms so great, that everything we calculate about evolution simply could not have happened the way they did. The flaws in evolution are tremendous. The whole thing is a hoax, and science fiction at its best.
exactly my point they may have resemblance to us but we aren't their descendants.
Video doesnt work
but thx for fun while reading some comments
Darvin were shocked
but thx for fun while reading some comments
Darvin were shocked
Who is Marvin?
Video doesnt work
but thx for fun while reading some comments
Darvin were shocked
but thx for fun while reading some comments
Darvin were shocked
"Evolution is real," screams the evolutionist. Yet he forgets the part about how even evolution scientists say that there are way fewer beneficial mutations than harmful ones. So, he is showing that he picks on the thing that he favors rather than the thing that makes sense.
Jump to: