Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
Aber, niemals "how to spell" gelernt!
When I'm not getting that much right, I go basic for a while just to correct the trend.
YES SCIENCE HAS DISPROVEN THAT HUMANS CAM FROM APES AND THE PROOF IS IN THE POST YOU JUST ANSWERED.
Oh and whales have nothing to do with it except that when you are proven wrong all you know how to do is lie and insult.
I reposted it because even though I had given you the post#1175 where it was originally posted, even though I had posted the article directly to you, you continued to deny that I had said what the definition of macro-evolution is.
SO LOOK IN THE MIRROR AND BLAME THE LIAR WHO DENIED WHAT HE KNEW VERY WELL HAD ALREADY BEEN SAID.
Not that you or any of the evolutionists here would bother to discuss it even after it has been posted three times. The statement is correct and speaks for itself so you have make up phony issues to attack me.
Playing the little word games again. That may be a complete fossil, but the "macro-evolution" of that animal was determined from teeth only - as it said in the article you posted and as I stated in the post you just replied to. You can keep the animal, but you do not have proof of macro-evolution.
No, it hasn't. And no, it isn't.
The post of yours I answered would be number 1651. Nothing here makes any statement which can reasonably be interpreted as you suggest.
One example, the first, will suffice.
The emergence of hominids came from a common ancestor of extant apes and humans from approximately 6-7 mya.
What would "a common ancestor of extant apes and humans" be? An ape. Note the word "extant," meaning "still around." "Still-around apes" as opposed to a "not around" ape, the common ancestor of human and extant apes. The category error here is the same in your other evidences.
Oh and whales have nothing to do with it except that when you are proven wrong all you know how to do is lie and insult.
You have time to type this but not to answer the question? And where is the lie? You said DNA disproves a hippo-to-whale connection. Then you tried to pretend you didn't understand the contradictory data. (Do you need a link for that? It was pathetic.)
What it has to do with your hominid claim is the underlying theme. You spew something utterly, ridiculously baseless. "Evolutionists admit humans did not come from apes." No, they don't.
Then you brazen. Eventually, you fall silent. Then you appear on a new thread, newborn, trolling for idiots.
Unbelievable! That is what I give you in post#1652, the post you just replied to! What do you want me to do, read it to you like a little baby?
The source is in post#1651 (or should I repost it again since perhaps you will deny that I ever posted if I just give you a post#). However, it is very dishonest of you to ask for this proof since you know quite well that science has been saying for decades that man and apes have a common ancestor not that man descended from monkeys as the charlatan Darwin said.
"Evolutionists" (i.e, mainstream science) say that apes diverged from monkeys something like 30 million years ago. Don't make me look it up.
"Evolutionists" say that the ancestor of that "common ancestor of extant apes and humans" was on the "ape" side of that divide.
Any way you look at it, "evolutionists say" that your ancestry comes down through the apes. If that bugs you, at one time rather earlier it was primitive chordates.
SHOW ME THE BONES OF A HOMO ERECTUS WHICH HAS BEEN PROVEN TO HAVE LIVED LESS THAN 100,000 YEARS AGO.
The data on the charts make your argument ridiculous.
There was no gap.
Indeed.
After erectus came Neanderthal and after Neanderthal came homo sapiens. The problem is that homo sapiens did not descend from Neanderthal and I already gave the proof of that. I also gave you the sources that prove that homo erectus was not around after 200,000 years ago. If you have proof otherwise, show it here.
At this point on this thread, in answer to the post it shams answering, simply self-discrediting. (There was not only no overall gap, there's no gap even if H. sapiens neanderthalensis is removed.)
SHOW ME THE BONES OF A HOMO ERECTUS WHICH HAS BEEN PROVEN TO HAVE LIVED LESS THAN 100,000 YEARS AGO.
Same applies here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.