Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th wrote:

Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
news:2hjfl25ahi78roc6tr28jmqf1680crt6ta@4ax.com:

Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th wrote:

Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
news:c639l29gacl7kt21gn7jlps89n03m0nfhj@4ax.com:

Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th wrote:

Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
news:c6duk2tcff40ttc8bmgvu9b978e4kqdmbs@4ax.com:

You have heard how an amoeba evolved into a critter which crawled up
out of the primorial slime and eventually became an ape, which
eventually became a human.... but now here is proof that a "common
ancestor" had descendants which crawled back into the ocean and
reversed, or at least hindered the evolutionary process:

Your understanding of evolution is flawed. Evolution is change, not
progress. The change is constrained by the environment. Species evolve
to survive in their environment. There is actually a case of human
somatic cells evolving into a single celled protist. Of course it is a
rather artificial case but the cell lines derived from the cancer
cells of a certain patient (Henrietta Lacks) who died in the 1950's
are still thriving. It hasn't been officially accepted but some regard
these cells as a new species "Helacyton gartleri".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa

"Fossil remains show dolphins and whales were four-footed land
animals about 50 million years ago and share the same common
ancestor as hippos and deer. Scientists believe they later
transitioned to an aquatic lifestyle and their hind limbs
disappeared."

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pub&dt=061106&cat=science&st=
sc ie nced8l756601&src=ap

Think about it. Had dolphins not gone back into the sea they just
might've invented the internet millions of years before Al Gore did,
and you just might be able to drive your SUV without having to worry
about "global warming" by now.

Why would you think that. None of the cetacean's close terrestrial
relatives evolved in the direction of being able to invent technology.

Klazmon.

Good point. But actually the whole argument is needless. The guy
probably found 3 or 4 bones and then came up with that whole theory
about dolphins..... just as all bone worshippers do.

"The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there
are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that
all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be
placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!"-*Science Digest
90, May 1982, p. 44.

This is a canard. In the twenty four years since this was written,
hundreds of hominid remains have been found.

Which wipes out the 20 CENTURIES of Christianity how?

Non sequitur. What wipes out 20 centuries of christianity is the continuous
lies that you fundies spout.

Klazmon.

Yeah. As if an amoeba turning into a human after billions of years
isn't a lie.

Even worse, you say that the amoeba sprang from the "chemical soup" by
accidental, random chance.

How absurd.

You lie. Even the evidence for your favorite example of evolution, the
horse, is a bunch of lies.....

1 - Different animals in each series. In the horse-series exhibit we
see a small, three-toed animal that grows larger and becomes our
single-toed horse. But the sequence varies from museum to museum
(according to which non-horse smaller creatures have been selected to
portray "early horses"). There are over 20 different fossil horse
series exhibits in the museums-with no two exactly alike! The experts
select from bones of smaller animals and place them to the left of
bones of modern horses, and, presto! another horse series!

2 - Imaginary, not real. The sequence from small many-toed forms to
large one-toed forms is completely absent in the fossil record. Some
smaller creatures have one or two toes; some larger ones have two or
three.

3 - Number of rib bones. The number of rib bones does not agree with
the sequence. The four toed Hyracothedum has 18 pairs of ribs; the
next creature has 19; there is a jump to 15; and finally back to 18
for Equus, the modern horse.

4 - No transitional teeth. The teeth of the "horse" animals are either
grazing or browsing types. There are no transitional types of teeth
between these two basic types. of teeth between these two basic types.

5 - Not from in-order strata. The "horse" creatures do not come from
the "proper" lower-to-upper rock strata sequence. (Sometimes the
smallest "horse" is found in the highest strata.)

6 - Calling a badger a horse. The first of the horses has been called
"Eohippus" (dawn horse), but experts frequently prefer to call it
Hyracotherium, since it is like our modern hyrax, or rock badger. Some
museums exclude Eohippus entirely because it is identical to the
rabbit-like hyrax (daman) now living in Africa. (Those experts who
cling to their "Eohippus" theory have to admit that it climbed trees!)
The four-toed Hyracotherium does not look the least bit like a horse.
(The hyrax foot looks like a hoof, because it is a suction cup so the
little animal can walk right up vertical trees! Horses do not have
suction cups on their feet!)

"The first animal in the series, Hyracotherium (Eohippus) is so
different from the modern horse and so different from the next one in
the series that there is a big question concerning its right to a
place in the series . . [It has] a slender face with the eyes midway
along the side, the presence of canine teeth, and not much of a
diastema (space between front teeth and back teeth), arched back and
long tail."-H.G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), pp.
194-195.

7 - Horse series exists only in museums. A complete series of horse
fossils in the correct evolutionary order has not been found anywhere
in the world. The fossil-bone horse series starts in North America (or
Africa; there is dispute about this), jumps to Europe, and then back
again to North America. When they are found on the same continent (as
at the John Day formation in Oregon), the three-toed and one-toed are
found in the same geological horizon (stratum). Yet, according to
evolutionary theory, it required millions of years for one species to
make the change to another.

8 - Each one distinct from others. There are no transitional forms
between each of these "horses." As with all the other fossils, each
suddenly appears in the fossil record.

9 - Bottom found at the top. Fossils of Eohippus have been found in
the top-most strata, alongside of fossils of two modern horses: Equus
nevadensls and Equus accidentalis.

10 - Gaps below as well as above. Eohippus, the earliest of these
"horses," is completely unconnected by any supposed link to its
presumed ancestors, the condylarths.

11 - Recent ones below earlier ones. In South America, the one-toed
("more recent") is even found below the three-toed ("more ancient")
creature.

12 - Never found in consecutive strata. Nowhere in the world are the
fossils of the horse series found in successive strata.

13 - Heavily keyed to size. The series shown in museum displays
generally depict an increase in size; and yet the range in size of
living horses today, from the tiny American miniature ponies to the
enormous shires of England, is as great as that found in the fossil
record. However, the modern ones are all solidly horses.

14 - Bones an inadequate basis. In reality, one cannot go by skeletal
remains. Living horses and donkeys are obviously different species,
but a collection of their bones would place them all together.

http://www.evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c17.htm

Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th wrote:

Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
news:2hjfl25ahi78roc6tr28jmqf1680crt6ta@4ax.com:

Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th wrote:

Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
news:c639l29gacl7kt21gn7jlps89n03m0nfhj@4ax.com:

Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th wrote:

Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in
news:c6duk2tcff40ttc8bmgvu9b978e4kqdmbs@4ax.com:

You have heard how an amoeba evolved into a critter which crawled up
out of the primorial slime and eventually became an ape, which
eventually became a human.... but now here is proof that a "common
ancestor" had descendants which crawled back into the ocean and
reversed, or at least hindered the evolutionary process:

Your understanding of evolution is flawed. Evolution is change, not
progress. The change is constrained by the environment. Species evolve
to survive in their environment. There is actually a case of human
somatic cells evolving into a single celled protist. Of course it is a
rather artificial case but the cell lines derived from the cancer
cells of a certain patient (Henrietta Lacks) who died in the 1950's
are still thriving. It hasn't been officially accepted but some regard
these cells as a new species "Helacyton gartleri".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa

"Fossil remains show dolphins and whales were four-footed land
animals about 50 million years ago and share the same common
ancestor as hippos and deer. Scientists believe they later
transitioned to an aquatic lifestyle and their hind limbs
disappeared."

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pub&dt=061106&cat=science&st=
sc ie nced8l756601&src=ap

Think about it. Had dolphins not gone back into the sea they just
might've invented the internet millions of years before Al Gore did,
and you just might be able to drive your SUV without having to worry
about "global warming" by now.

Why would you think that. None of the cetacean's close terrestrial
relatives evolved in the direction of being able to invent technology.

Klazmon.

Good point. But actually the whole argument is needless. The guy
probably found 3 or 4 bones and then came up with that whole theory
about dolphins..... just as all bone worshippers do.

"The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there
are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that
all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be
placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!"—*Science Digest
90, May 1982, p. 44.

This is a canard. In the twenty four years since this was written,
hundreds of hominid remains have been found.

Which wipes out the 20 CENTURIES of Christianity how?

Non sequitur. What wipes out 20 centuries of christianity is the continuous
lies that you fundies spout.

Klazmon.

Yeah. As if an amoeba turning into a human after billions of years
isn't a lie.

Even worse, you say that the amoeba sprang from the "chemical soup" by
accidental, random chance.

How absurd.

You lie. Even the evidence for your favorite example of evolution, the
horse, is a bunch of lies.....

1 - Different animals in each series. In the horse-series exhibit we
see a small, three-toed animal that grows larger and becomes our
single-toed horse.

But the sequence varies from museum to museum

(according to which non-horse smaller creatures have been selected to
portray "early horses"). There are over 20 different fossil horse
series exhibits in the museums—with no two exactly alike! The experts
select from bones of smaller animals and place them to the left of
bones of modern horses, and, presto! another horse series!

2 - Imaginary, not real. The sequence from small many-toed forms to
large one-toed forms is completely absent in the fossil record. Some
smaller creatures have one or two toes; some larger ones have two or
three.

3 - Number of rib bones. The number of rib bones does not agree with
the sequence. The four toed Hyracothedum has 18 pairs of ribs; the
next creature has 19; there is a jump to 15; and finally back to 18
for Equus, the modern horse.

4 - No transitional teeth. The teeth of the "horse" animals are either
grazing or browsing types. There are no transitional types of teeth
between these two basic types. of teeth between these two basic types.

5 - Not from in-order strata. The "horse" creatures do not come from
the "proper" lower-to-upper rock strata sequence. (Sometimes the
smallest "horse" is found in the highest strata.)

6 - Calling a badger a horse. The first of the horses has been called
"Eohippus" (dawn horse), but experts frequently prefer to call it
Hyracotherium, since it is like our modern hyrax, or rock badger. Some
museums exclude Eohippus entirely because it is identical to the
rabbit-like hyrax (daman) now living in Africa. (Those experts who
cling to their "Eohippus" theory have to admit that it climbed trees!)
The four-toed Hyracotherium does not look the least bit like a horse.
(The hyrax foot looks like a hoof, because it is a suction cup so the
little animal can walk right up vertical trees! Horses do not have
suction cups on their feet!)

"The first animal in the series, Hyracotherium (Eohippus) is so
different from the modern horse and so different from the next one in
the series that there is a big question concerning its right to a
place in the series . . [It has] a slender face with the eyes midway
along the side, the presence of canine teeth, and not much of a
diastema (space between front teeth and back teeth), arched back and
long tail."—H.G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), pp.
194-195.

7 - Horse series exists only in museums. A complete series of horse
fossils in the correct evolutionary order has not been found anywhere
in the world.

The fossil-bone horse series starts in North America (or
Africa; there is dispute about this), jumps to Europe, and then back
again to North America. When they are found on the same continent (as
at the John Day formation in Oregon), the three-toed and one-toed are
found in the same geological horizon (stratum). Yet, according to
evolutionary theory, it required millions of years for one species to
make the change to another.
8 - Each one distinct from others. There are no transitional forms
between each of these "horses." As with all the other fossils, each
suddenly appears in the fossil record.

9 - Bottom found at the top. Fossils of Eohippus have been found in
the top-most strata, alongside of fossils of two modern horses: Equus
nevadensls and Equus accidentalis.

10 - Gaps below as well as above. Eohippus, the earliest of these
"horses," is completely unconnected by any supposed link to its
presumed ancestors, the condylarths.

11 - Recent ones below earlier ones. In South America, the one-toed
("more recent") is even found below the three-toed ("more ancient")
creature.

12 - Never found in consecutive strata. Nowhere in the world are the
fossils of the horse series found in successive strata.

13 - Heavily keyed to size. The series shown in museum displays
generally depict an increase in size; and yet the range in size of
living horses today, from the tiny American miniature ponies to the
enormous shires of England, is as great as that found in the fossil
record. However, the modern ones are all solidly horses.

14 - Bones an inadequate basis. In reality, one cannot go by skeletal
remains. Living horses and donkeys are obviously different species,
but a collection of their bones would place them all together.

http://www.evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c17.htm