you have fossil but they do not show what you think they show. there is 0 evidence of transition fossils more so from one species to another.
even evolutionist say they don't exist so I don't see how you can keep up with the façade is beyond me.
there are 0 fossil that depict a macro-evolutionary change from one species to another. to deny this is to live in scientific loony land.
LOL wiki. no there isn't there are no fossils that exist that link that humans evolved from apes.
if you want to continue that faulty logic then apes should still be evolving into humans ol wait they aren't.\
Oh jesus christ. That's not at all how it works.
And yes, there are plenty of transitional fossils.
there are none.
Well, all you've proven with this post is that you have no clue how evolution works.
that is what evolutionist say happened it isn't me saying it. it is exactly what Darwin said. that we evolved from apes.
if so I think you need to go tell the people spouting this *evolutionists* that they don't know what they are talking about.
although I found it interesting that you ignored comments made by evolutionists themselves that I posted.
I wonder why that is?
ol yea they even know that evolution is bunk.
I quoted you several evolutionists personal beliefs.
You are willfully ignorant
List of transitional forms - RationalWiki
Lines of Evidence: Transitional Forms, Page 1 of 2
The continued existence of apes doesn't contradict evolution. Let me explain this to you:
Evolution is not a straight line. It's more like a branching tree. We didn't "evolve from monkeys," we share a common ancestor with monkeys. (and chimpanzees and gorrillas and so on).
At some point, ape-like species split into several branches, and on one of those branches you find us. On another branch, you find monkeys.
...
Homo erectus, on the other hand, isn't around anymore.
nope I just know of all the fake attempts that have been tried to link the two.
PS scientists still haven't found the common ancestor or the missing link. so far all of the fossils they have found pretty much say humans are humans.
Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray | Science | The Guardian
lol to funny every new discovery points back to one thing. humans begat humans. they didn't come from apes.
really show me the transition fossils from ape to man.
It's funny how the people most hostile and enraged by religion
I don't think you will even try to answer this.
Homo sapiens are apes.
Thanks for proving you don't understand this topic.
Indeed it means, "the wise ape". However, we are not apes and we do not fit in that taxonomy. And it's Homo Sapiens sapiens. We are a subspecies in the sapiens line.
Homo Sapiens are a branch of great apes. We accurately more primates, but the notion that humans evolved from apes and that apes aren't around because of that is certified 100% ignorance.
You think the question of evolution/creation is settled? Lol.
Thanks for demonstrating the wisdom of this quote (since I know how much you like quotes).
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." ---William F. Buckley, Jr.
You're almost there and I won't address the blather about the originating species disappearing automatically because a new species or subspecies emerges.
I do take a little exception with likenong us to a group of primates that are a rather distant source. It's like comparing a birthday cake to a grain of wheat.
And again, it's Homo Sapiens sapiens. There were other subspecies that shared the Homo Sapiens name. In fact our direct ancestor sub-species, Homo sapiens idaltu also had modern human anatomy.
The originating species disappearing is always something creationists cite. There is actually no reason that the originating species can't stay the same if parts of its population are geographically isolated in an environment that doesn't materially favor any new mutation. The whole "if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys" line is a classic example of creationist ignorance.
Meh. Ultimately we are genetically very similar to other primates and apes. I don't believe that simply because we are the dominant species that it's somehow degrading to us to accept that we are genetically not much different from them. Hell, we share like 70% of our DNA with starfish. It is what it is and we should simply just accept that is how we got here. Rather than try to cast an aura of religious superiority that effectively stems from the argument "if someone took the time to write it down it must be true."
One also has to remember that classification is an artificial system that man kind created. Yes, our ancestors had human anatomy, and their ancestors slightly less until we go back to where apes and primates split and where our branch diverged from other apes. Doesn't change the fact that we are very much in the ape/primate branch of life.
My issue is with the anti-religious nutters that insist upon stirring the pot with these comparisons. They do not compare mankind with the starfish. The ONLY reason they choose apes for source point is to wind up the religious folk. We are genetically similar in ways to all life on Earth, but we are a thing alone, different from other species and sub-species as they are from one another.
As is time, as are quite a number of things man has developed.
These are artificial classifications useful to us in understanding the universe around us. They are also useful in informing about differences. WE are NOT the same sub-species as out ancestors. Hell, we're not even the same species going back far enough. And actually, rather than ape, we come more from the lemur line.
and now the strawman argument of why they don't.
sorry according to evolutionist it doesn't stop so there is no reason that monkey should stop evolving into humans. however we know where humans come from.
that is other humans not apes.
they have not found the common ancestor. the oldest skull found is 1.8m years old please see the article I posted.
it shows again the humans begat humans there is no common ancestor. it simply doesn't exist and they have never found it.
yes I know they came up with the whole common ancestor nonsense because they couldn't prove the other. every so called missing link discover was false or fake.
I really like the one where the so called skull cap was nothing more than an elephant kneecap.
yet it was herald as one of the most scientific discoveries of all time till well they figured out that it wasn't what they thought.
and now the strawman argument of why they don't.
sorry according to evolutionist it doesn't stop so there is no reason that monkey should stop evolving into humans.
Again, not my issue and it is blather. The old species doesn't disappear the day the new species is born.
My issue is with the anti-religious nutters that insist upon stirring the pot with these comparisons. They do not compare mankind with the starfish. The ONLY reason they choose apes for source point is to wind up the religious folk. We are genetically similar in ways to all life on Earth, but we are a thing alone, different from other species and sub-species as they are from one another.
As is time, as are quite a number of things man has developed. These are artificial classifications useful to us in understanding the universe around us. They are also useful in informing about differences. WE are NOT the same sub-species as out ancestors. Hell, we're not even the same species going back far enough. And actually, rather than ape, we come more from the lemur line.
You think the question of evolution/creation is settled? Lol.
nope I just know of all the fake attempts that have been tried to link the two.
PS scientists still haven't found the common ancestor or the missing link. so far all of the fossils they have found pretty much say humans are humans.
Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray | Science | The Guardian
lol to funny every new discovery points back to one thing. humans begat humans. they didn't come from apes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?