Pages:
Author

Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 97. (Read 108046 times)

newbie
Activity: 75
Merit: 0
February 19, 2018, 06:49:35 PM
Why there are still monkeys around if they were part of our evolutionary beginnings ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE
Yes, how could monkeys be still present if they have evolved? There are really similarities but it does not mean that they are products of evolution. But I do believe that they live similarly made creations of a supreme being. Some are mistakes of nature, propably during the transfer of genes to another offspring where they appear erroneous and resulted in a different looking offspring like for example a lizard that is born looking like a snake.
newbie
Activity: 63
Merit: 0
February 19, 2018, 06:47:17 PM
Some people who had heard “theory evolution” or “Darwinisme”  that the concepts is only related to the study biology and don’t affect one bit against everyday life. The presumption is very wrong because of this theory was more than just the concept of biology. The theory evolution has become the foundations a philosophy fancies most of the human.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
February 19, 2018, 05:21:20 PM
All of those are also examples of evolution in the sense of evolution theory.

All those are examples of evolution points that have been disproven or dropped for lack of real evidence as being part of evolution. If you believe them to be true, evolution is at least part of your personal religion.

SO easy to post that any evidence for evolution has been "disproven" (without backing it up with facts), yet you continue pushing your god fantasy.  :/

It's so easy to post that any evidence for evolution has been "proven" (without backing it up with facts), yet you continue pushing your evolution fantasy.

Cool

Nah, you are just like notbatman, a liar. I posted examples of evolution and you simply said ''All those are examples of evolution points that have been disproven or dropped for lack of real evidence '' Rofl. You don't even have an argument anymore.

Change exists. In that sense, evolution exists. That's all.

There is no proof that evolution theory type of evolution exists.

The foundational proof that evolution theory type of evolution doesn't exist is, cause and effect exists in everything. However, if you think that C&E doesn't exist somewhere, prove it. And then prove that it has anything to do with evolution.

Scientists have been trying to find non-C&E actions or operations for years. They haven't come close.

Why does C&E affect evolution theory? Because C&E means that there is no pure random. Everything acts like it has been programmed. This is not what evolution theory says.

Evolution is a complete hoax, and it is you who are the liar because you know this.

Cool

Again with your crap? ''if you think that C&E doesn't exist somewhere, prove it.'' You claimed that C&E doesn't apply to god, I don't need to prove anything, you just keep contradicting yourself.

''Scientists have been trying to find non-C&E actions or operations for years. They haven't come close.'' They really haven't, there is no research to find ''non C&E actions''

''Because C&E means that there is no pure random.'' Actually it only means that anything that has an effect also has a cause.

You and your misquotes. C&E does not necessarily apply to God. We don't know for a fact. God is extremely beyond our thought processes; we can't understand anything about Him except that He tells us.

The whole basic format for all scientific research is about finding C&E. The individual scientist may not know it, but his supporting university or corporation is looking for C&E just so that they might finally have some possible way of proving evolution.

Anything that is an effect and has a cause IS programming. Programming means that pure random doesn't have anything to do with it.

Thanks for confirming the things that I have been saying, both about you and about evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
February 19, 2018, 04:55:19 PM
All of those are also examples of evolution in the sense of evolution theory.

All those are examples of evolution points that have been disproven or dropped for lack of real evidence as being part of evolution. If you believe them to be true, evolution is at least part of your personal religion.

SO easy to post that any evidence for evolution has been "disproven" (without backing it up with facts), yet you continue pushing your god fantasy.  :/

It's so easy to post that any evidence for evolution has been "proven" (without backing it up with facts), yet you continue pushing your evolution fantasy.

Cool

Nah, you are just like notbatman, a liar. I posted examples of evolution and you simply said ''All those are examples of evolution points that have been disproven or dropped for lack of real evidence '' Rofl. You don't even have an argument anymore.

Change exists. In that sense, evolution exists. That's all.

There is no proof that evolution theory type of evolution exists.

The foundational proof that evolution theory type of evolution doesn't exist is, cause and effect exists in everything. However, if you think that C&E doesn't exist somewhere, prove it. And then prove that it has anything to do with evolution.

Scientists have been trying to find non-C&E actions or operations for years. They haven't come close.

Why does C&E affect evolution theory? Because C&E means that there is no pure random. Everything acts like it has been programmed. This is not what evolution theory says.

Evolution is a complete hoax, and it is you who are the liar because you know this.

Cool

Again with your crap? ''if you think that C&E doesn't exist somewhere, prove it.'' You claimed that C&E doesn't apply to god, I don't need to prove anything, you just keep contradicting yourself.

''Scientists have been trying to find non-C&E actions or operations for years. They haven't come close.'' They really haven't, there is no research to find ''non C&E actions''

''Because C&E means that there is no pure random.'' Actually it only means that anything that has an effect also has a cause.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
February 19, 2018, 04:53:14 PM
How you actually explain bones dating back millions of years?

The same way he "explains" everything else.  With his belief system - no facts.

It works well when he is talking to himself - it only breaks down when he tries to explain it to others.  :/





The history proves you and your meme is just wrong. Puritans like I. Newton (modern physics) and F. Bacon (modern scientific theory) were absolutely convinced that God had did it all and yet they still wanted to know how he made it.

So if you believe in God, it does not imply that you are not curious - how he made it all.

On the other hand, if you are not curious how evolution works (like most of the people), but you are convinced it is true becuase someone had said so - you are beyond help.

Quote
How you actually explain bones dating back millions of years?

It is easy. The date of fossils are dated based on the geological layer dating. It is one assumption based on another assumptions. Why noone would double check those assumptions? Because one is from the biology departament, and the other is geological. One and the other believes the other is right because they have to believe it because most biologist have no clue about geology and most geologist have no clue about biology. Those biologists who know geology will not get the review because there are not enough specialists to review them.

Even if some people have doubts, they are not the ones that teach the students on the universities, because most of the time it is the dumbest people that can't find another job teaches on the universities, and dumb people are not thinking much, they believe they are very smart and privilaged to teach.

You might say - it's impossible... Nah. Sadly it is possible. It is even more so. It is a reality.

bump

Great post.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
February 19, 2018, 04:51:17 PM
How you actually explain bones dating back millions of years?

The same way he "explains" everything else.  With his belief system - no facts.

It works well when he is talking to himself - it only breaks down when he tries to explain it to others.  :/





The history proves you and your meme is just wrong. Puritans like I. Newton (modern physics) and F. Bacon (modern scientific theory) were absolutely convinced that God had did it all and yet they still wanted to know how he made it.

So if you believe in God, it does not imply that you are not curious - how he made it all.

On the other hand, if you are not curious how evolution works (like most of the people), but you are convinced it is true becuase someone had said so - you are beyond help.

Quote
How you actually explain bones dating back millions of years?

It is easy. The date of fossils are dated based on the geological layer dating. It is one assumption based on another assumptions. Why noone would double check those assumptions? Because one is from the biology departament, and the other is geological. One and the other believes the other is right because they have to believe it because most biologist have no clue about geology and most geologist have no clue about biology. Those biologists who know geology will not get the review because there are not enough specialists to review them.

Even if some people have doubts, they are not the ones that teach the students on the universities, because most of the time it is the dumbest people. that can't find another job teaches on the universities, and dumb people are not thinking much. They believe they are very smart and privileged to teach.

You might say - it's impossible... Nah. Sadly it is possible. It is even more so. It is a reality.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
February 19, 2018, 03:58:25 PM
All of those are also examples of evolution in the sense of evolution theory.

All those are examples of evolution points that have been disproven or dropped for lack of real evidence as being part of evolution. If you believe them to be true, evolution is at least part of your personal religion.

SO easy to post that any evidence for evolution has been "disproven" (without backing it up with facts), yet you continue pushing your god fantasy.  :/

It's so easy to post that any evidence for evolution has been "proven" (without backing it up with facts), yet you continue pushing your evolution fantasy.

Cool

Nah, you are just like notbatman, a liar. I posted examples of evolution and you simply said ''All those are examples of evolution points that have been disproven or dropped for lack of real evidence '' Rofl. You don't even have an argument anymore.

Change exists. In that sense, evolution exists. That's all.

There is no proof that evolution theory type of evolution exists.

The foundational proof that evolution theory type of evolution doesn't exist is, cause and effect exists in everything. However, if you think that C&E doesn't exist somewhere, prove it. And then prove that it has anything to do with evolution.

Scientists have been trying to find non-C&E actions or operations for years. They haven't come close.

Why does C&E affect evolution theory? Because C&E means that there is no pure random. Everything acts like it has been programmed. This is not what evolution theory says.

Evolution is a complete hoax, and it is you who are the liar because you know this.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
February 19, 2018, 03:24:59 PM
All of those are also examples of evolution in the sense of evolution theory.

All those are examples of evolution points that have been disproven or dropped for lack of real evidence as being part of evolution. If you believe them to be true, evolution is at least part of your personal religion.

SO easy to post that any evidence for evolution has been "disproven" (without backing it up with facts), yet you continue pushing your god fantasy.  :/

It's so easy to post that any evidence for evolution has been "proven" (without backing it up with facts), yet you continue pushing your evolution fantasy.

Cool

Nah, you are just like notbatman, a liar. I posted examples of evolution and you simply said ''All those are examples of evolution points that have been disproven or dropped for lack of real evidence '' Rofl. You don't even have an argument anymore.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
February 19, 2018, 02:59:34 PM
All of those are also examples of evolution in the sense of evolution theory.

All those are examples of evolution points that have been disproven or dropped for lack of real evidence as being part of evolution. If you believe them to be true, evolution is at least part of your personal religion.

SO easy to post that any evidence for evolution has been "disproven" (without backing it up with facts), yet you continue pushing your god fantasy.  :/

It's so easy to post that any evidence for evolution has been "proven" (without backing it up with facts), yet you continue pushing your evolution fantasy.

Cool
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
February 09, 2018, 02:12:45 PM
How you actually explain bones dating back millions of years?

The same way he "explains" everything else.  With his belief system - no facts.

It works well when he is talking to himself - it only breaks down when he tries to explain it to others.  :/



Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
February 09, 2018, 01:06:13 PM
All of those are also examples of evolution in the sense of evolution theory.

All those are examples of evolution points that have been disproven or dropped for lack of real evidence as being part of evolution. If you believe them to be true, evolution is at least part of your personal religion.

SO easy to post that any evidence for evolution has been "disproven" (without backing it up with facts), yet you continue pushing your god fantasy.  :/
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
February 09, 2018, 10:46:13 AM
''Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.''

There is a species of fish currently in the process of becoming two separate species. There are multiple species of fish which have evolved to tolerate short periods on land.

''Simple adaptation. Not evolution in the sense of evolution theory.'' This is exactly evolution in the sense of evolution theory. Becoming a new species is not adaptation.

''There is a species of mini horse on an island off America's east coast which genetic testing shows evolved from European stock. (From survivors of a ship wreck.)

In the last 10,400 years evolution has produced a mutation in humans called lactase persistence. Some 90% of adult humans continue to produce this enzyme essential to digesting milk sugar.

And then there are genetic throwbacks who exhibit atavistic characteristics not seen in species for thousands or even millions of years. The webbing between human fingers is generally vestigial, but in some people it is pronounced enough that they may opt for surgical reduction. And others have more than the usual compliment of nipples, and even breasts.''


All of those are also examples of evolution in the sense of evolution theory.

All those are examples of evolution points that have been disproven or dropped for lack of real evidence as being part of evolution. If you believe them to be true, evolution is at least part of your personal religion.

Cool

EDIT: All of the popular science fiction stories have potentially truthful information and science in them. Some of these stories use actual science to make the story seem real. Yet, the story never happened. If it had, it would be science documentary rather than science fiction.

The only reason evolution theory remains is, it has become a popular theory. It never happened. If it had, there would be some scientists that could point to actual, factual happenings that show that evolution happened or is happening. So far, none of the actual factual happenings can factually be attributed to evolution. Why not? Because they fit adaptation or creation better and easier than they fit evolution.
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
February 09, 2018, 07:16:10 AM
''Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.''

There is a species of fish currently in the process of becoming two separate species. There are multiple species of fish which have evolved to tolerate short periods on land.

''Simple adaptation. Not evolution in the sense of evolution theory.'' This is exactly evolution in the sense of evolution theory. Becoming a new species is not adaptation.

''There is a species of mini horse on an island off America's east coast which genetic testing shows evolved from European stock. (From survivors of a ship wreck.)

In the last 10,400 years evolution has produced a mutation in humans called lactase persistence. Some 90% of adult humans continue to produce this enzyme essential to digesting milk sugar.

And then there are genetic throwbacks who exhibit atavistic characteristics not seen in species for thousands or even millions of years. The webbing between human fingers is generally vestigial, but in some people it is pronounced enough that they may opt for surgical reduction. And others have more than the usual compliment of nipples, and even breasts.''


All of those are also examples of evolution in the sense of evolution theory.
member
Activity: 252
Merit: 10
February 08, 2018, 11:53:58 PM
There has been no definite evidence to prove these theories at all. Shouldn't all monkeys have evolved to being man by now.


That's right sir there is no evidence to prove that because it is an theories, but there's a big chance that is theory is true. but for me I don't believe it is true facts.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
February 08, 2018, 09:57:59 PM
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
February 08, 2018, 07:46:57 PM
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
February 08, 2018, 07:05:37 PM
EDIT: Btw, Astargath. Thank you for helping me to show folks that evolution is a hoax.

Well, let's dissect the information given in your religious link shall we?

1. Michael Ruse acknowledges that evolution is religious.

Surely just because a professor in philosophy and history says he doesn't believe in evolution it doesn't mean that almost all scientists don't believe in it too.

2. But since evolution asks the same questions as religion—telling us where we came from, where we’re going, and what we should do on the way.

Does evolution tell us where we came from? Not really, that's still up to debate, there are various scientific fields trying to explain how we originated but that's not part of evolution.
It also doesn't tell us where we are going, no one knows what's going to happen, I don't really understand this point.
When does evolution tell you what to do along the way exactly? This is just plain stupid.


So to recap, you claim that 95% or more scientists do not believe in evolution yet you failed to provide evidence for it. The only thing you did is post a link of a religious websites that talks about 3-4 people that do not believe in evolution.

Ninety-five percent is way to generous of a number. It is actually so close to 100% that it is almost 100%. The thing that isn't said is that scientists who seem to believe in evolution, don't really. What they believe is that they have found evidence of evolution.

Zandar says it well when he says that they have found evidence of adaptation rather than evolution. If any and all scientists would examine their their so-called evolution in the light of adaptation, they would see that they are only attempting to believe.

If I were to show you and explain to you thousands of websites and books where so-called evolutionists were really only attempting to believe in evolution, but were not really believing it, according to the writings that they provided, you would only downplay the things that I showed you.

You are kinda right in talking religious talk. You are only doing the one thing that you can do... continue to promote evolution in a religious way. What else do you have? Certainly you don't have real evolution science on your side.

I am not going to provide you with more evidence for scientists who believe rather than know. Why not? Because essentially all evolution scientists are believers rather than those who know. Whatever of their writings you look at, you will find that the language they use shows that they are believers rather than knowledgeable "understanderers." It's in the language they use.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

You keep saying that and yet you fail to provide any meaningful data to sustain your argument. I also pointed out numerous times that not only scientists say that evolution is a fact, religious people, like you, also accept evolution as fact. In fact more and more every year. Pope Francis and several other popes also accept evolution as a fact and why wouldn't they? It's really hard to keep denying evolution with all the evidence out there. Take a step back and think about that.

The goal of Pope Francis and the Church leaders is to rule the world as a nation under their control. They will say anything to achieve this goal.

Since, as Steven Gould said, there is so extremely little SOLID scientific evidence for evolution, and essentially no fact at all, we see that any Church that accepts evolution as fact, is simply a deceptive church.

This is the basis of the fact that evolution is a religion right along with the Pope who supports it. Evolution is part of the religion of the Church.

Wake up and see that you are part of the Church by believing the religion of evolution that the Church supports. And thank you for prompting me to bring the logic of this evolution/Church religion to light, along with the fact that you are a religious person, right in the wording that you used. You said it yourself.

Now that we know that the Church and evolution are not righteous...

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

Your whole argument is starting to sound like: everyone is wrong but me. All scientists are wrong but they don't know it, all religious people that also support evolution (the majority) are also wrong, even the pope is wrong.

Some people like badecker think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law because laws are the absolute best. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a lawby proving it. A theory never becomes a law.
While you make me the focus, you forget one very important thing. It doesn't matter what I think. All that matters is what is right and what is wrong.


Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Evolution is the same.
The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.
This, also, is where you are wrong. What is really happening is that scientists are taking flawed basic evolution science, and building on it some aspect of science that is true. In other words, since the foundation of evolution is flawed, everything built on it is going to be flawed.



If you really wanted to research, you would. There are a ton of examples and evidence that supports evolution.

''There is a species of fish currently in the process of becoming two separate species. There are multiple species of fish which have evolved to tolerate short periods on land.
Simple adaptation. Not evolution in the sense of evolution theory. Complete misinterpretation by scientists who want evolution to exist really bad.



There is a species of mini horse on an island off America's east coast which genetic testing shows evolved from European stock. (From survivors of a ship wreck.)

In the last 10,400 years evolution has produced a mutation in humans called lactase persistence. Some 90% of adult humans continue to produce this enzyme essential to digesting milk sugar.

And then there are genetic throwbacks who exhibit atavistic characteristics not seen in species for thousands or even millions of years. The webbing between human fingers is generally vestigial, but in some people it is pronounced enough that they may opt for surgical reduction. And others have more than the usual compliment of nipples, and even breasts.''


Change is happening all around us. It doesn't have anything to do with evolution theory as evolutionists state it. How do we know? By the language of fundamental evolution writings. These writings state that they don't know if evolution is factual in the way that they are stating or not. And since they don't know it to be true as they are stating, why would they know it just had to be true at all?

They don't know. They simply wish. They hope. They dream. There is no fact for evolution theory type of evolution.

Evolution theory constantly changes. Tons of theoretical points have been thought up and proven wrong since the time of Darwin. All that there is, is theory stated in the way that it is only ideas that scientists are trying to prove. There is no evolution fact except the fact of evolution theory. Evolution theory factually does exist. Evolution is not known to exist at all.

What we HAVEN'T done in this little post, is to point out all the facts that are against evolution and evolution theory. All we are suggesting is to look at the way in which foundational evolution writings state evolution. They state it is such a way with wording that shows that they do not know if evolution is factual or not. Take the evolution wording apart word by word. The sentences and paragraphs state that they don't know.

Obviously you can find media people who will take evolution and run with it as though it were factual. But the real scientists doing the work realize that their ideas are simply interpretations that may be wrong. Look again at https://answersingenesis.org/public-school/religion-in-schools/the-religion-of-evolution/ which shows some of the honesty that some of the evolutionists are using to show that evolution doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Evolution is a complete and pure nonsensical hoax.

Cool
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 251
February 08, 2018, 04:30:52 PM
I don't think so because evolution of human and evolution of monkey is different stuff and when i'm looking at my self i can see that many years ago people wasn't the same.
newbie
Activity: 30
Merit: 0
February 08, 2018, 12:12:22 PM
I guess the theory of evolution pump up to the question where human come from.? The answered is base on what they think it was, in a possible right solution just to prove human came from this line of evolution. No need to argue with this coz the author was silent.
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
February 08, 2018, 11:58:08 AM
EDIT: Btw, Astargath. Thank you for helping me to show folks that evolution is a hoax.

Well, let's dissect the information given in your religious link shall we?

1. Michael Ruse acknowledges that evolution is religious.

Surely just because a professor in philosophy and history says he doesn't believe in evolution it doesn't mean that almost all scientists don't believe in it too.

2. But since evolution asks the same questions as religion—telling us where we came from, where we’re going, and what we should do on the way.

Does evolution tell us where we came from? Not really, that's still up to debate, there are various scientific fields trying to explain how we originated but that's not part of evolution.
It also doesn't tell us where we are going, no one knows what's going to happen, I don't really understand this point.
When does evolution tell you what to do along the way exactly? This is just plain stupid.


So to recap, you claim that 95% or more scientists do not believe in evolution yet you failed to provide evidence for it. The only thing you did is post a link of a religious websites that talks about 3-4 people that do not believe in evolution.

Ninety-five percent is way to generous of a number. It is actually so close to 100% that it is almost 100%. The thing that isn't said is that scientists who seem to believe in evolution, don't really. What they believe is that they have found evidence of evolution.

Zandar says it well when he says that they have found evidence of adaptation rather than evolution. If any and all scientists would examine their their so-called evolution in the light of adaptation, they would see that they are only attempting to believe.

If I were to show you and explain to you thousands of websites and books where so-called evolutionists were really only attempting to believe in evolution, but were not really believing it, according to the writings that they provided, you would only downplay the things that I showed you.

You are kinda right in talking religious talk. You are only doing the one thing that you can do... continue to promote evolution in a religious way. What else do you have? Certainly you don't have real evolution science on your side.

I am not going to provide you with more evidence for scientists who believe rather than know. Why not? Because essentially all evolution scientists are believers rather than those who know. Whatever of their writings you look at, you will find that the language they use shows that they are believers rather than knowledgeable "understanderers." It's in the language they use.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

You keep saying that and yet you fail to provide any meaningful data to sustain your argument. I also pointed out numerous times that not only scientists say that evolution is a fact, religious people, like you, also accept evolution as fact. In fact more and more every year. Pope Francis and several other popes also accept evolution as a fact and why wouldn't they? It's really hard to keep denying evolution with all the evidence out there. Take a step back and think about that.

The goal of Pope Francis and the Church leaders is to rule the world as a nation under their control. They will say anything to achieve this goal.

Since, as Steven Gould said, there is so extremely little SOLID scientific evidence for evolution, and essentially no fact at all, we see that any Church that accepts evolution as fact, is simply a deceptive church.

This is the basis of the fact that evolution is a religion right along with the Pope who supports it. Evolution is part of the religion of the Church.

Wake up and see that you are part of the Church by believing the religion of evolution that the Church supports. And thank you for prompting me to bring the logic of this evolution/Church religion to light, along with the fact that you are a religious person, right in the wording that you used. You said it yourself.

Now that we know that the Church and evolution are not righteous...

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

Your whole argument is starting to sound like: everyone is wrong but me. All scientists are wrong but they don't know it, all religious people that also support evolution (the majority) are also wrong, even the pope is wrong.

Some people like badecker think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law because laws are the absolute best. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a lawby proving it. A theory never becomes a law.
Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Evolution is the same.
The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

If you really wanted to research, you would. There are a ton of examples and evidence that supports evolution.

''There is a species of fish currently in the process of becoming two separate species. There are multiple species of fish which have evolved to tolerate short periods on land.

There is a species of mini horse on an island off America's east coast which genetic testing shows evolved from European stock. (From survivors of a ship wreck.)

In the last 10,400 years evolution has produced a mutation in humans called lactase persistence. Some 90% of adult humans continue to produce this enzyme essential to digesting milk sugar.

And then there are genetic throwbacks who exhibit atavistic characteristics not seen in species for thousands or even millions of years. The webbing between human fingers is generally vestigial, but in some people it is pronounced enough that they may opt for surgical reduction. And others have more than the usual compliment of nipples, and even breasts.''
Pages:
Jump to: