Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
In my world? I do not live in the world of fairy tales like the evolutionists. I have to see the evidence and you have none. Yes, there was some sort of a species attached to those bones. However, neither you nor I have the vaguest idea what those species looked like, what their characteristics were or where they descended from. In addition to which, even if I were to grant you that those who had those teeth and jaws did indeed have the characteristics of the platypus (which I definitely do not) you still could not trace all those features to any known species. So you lose Vade. I am correct. The platypus is just another living species which totally disproves the theory of evolution.
They have now been classified TOP SECRET "EMBRYONIC." You will be forwarded instructions on how to degauss your head.
As I say, when the opponent insults, it signifies he is conceding the discussion. Thanks for finally admitting that homo sapiens has no ancestors.
since you apparently have the right to decide who is and is not christian, what are his deeds that prove he is not christian?
No they did not just change the name, they changed the species from its own to homo erectus. So, regardless of your sophistry, it is not proof of his being an ancestor to homo sapiens. In fact you should read the story of this skull. It was found in a mine. It was seriously mistreated by the miners. There were other skeletons found with it which were totally destroyed. The site was never available for examination and many more problems which make this skull totally unusable as proof of anything.
Now is your chance to state whether you are a Christian or not.
No longer am I.
Okay. But you never were.
Bingo! By Jove, I think he's got it! Oh wait, the rest of his post proves that any insight was purely a fleeting thing. Okay, now g3k, you've finally understood, after how many months, that scientific frameworks are built upon observation -- but the kicker is, those observations can be used to predict things that cannot be observed, such as the prediction that no dinosaur ever had mammary glands (where's Dr. Demento when you need him?). That, my boy, is science.
Sometimes I get the impression I'm arguing with a 14-year-old.
Yeah? So? They were never claimed to be Java Man, they were claimed to be Homo Erectus. If I found the remains of Homo Erectus in Paris, the result would not be "Paris Man." Once more, your inability to process even basic concepts when dealing with this theory do not speak well of your understanding of it.
No it cannot - as I have shown with the platypus. If the platypus had never been found everyone would have thought it was a live birthing animal. The reason why live birthing is not included in the list of essential mammalian characteristics is the platypus. Also none of the unique features of the platypus would have been predicted by your phony paleontological science.
In addition, this paleontological "science" contradicts your evolutionary theory of gradual change of species. There is no reason why totally unrelated characteristics should have evolved together at the same time. It is totally ridiculous to say such a thing.
The article you posted, as I pointed out already, was so unscientific (or perhaps so deceitful) that it never identified what the fossils were originally classified as. What we do know is that it was re-dated based on (tara) some teeth, of some animal, found near the site of the original find - decades after the fossil was found. In other words, the whole thing smells to high heaven.
Repeating yourself does not answer the questions I posed to you:
Where did Euglena get the eye-spot (it does see light from it). How did the eye of other species descend from Euglena? (and by that I mean through what species).
Note one thing, if there is a match between the eye-spot of the Euglena AND you can find the direct lineage of that trait through other higher species, then you can say that this is proof of evolution. However, if:
1. you cannot find where the Euglena got the eye spot.
OR
2. you cannot find the direct succession of Euglena's eyes to higher species.
OR
3. you cannot show that the gene for the eye-spot in Euglena is the same as those of higher species (this was your statement remember, so you cannot back off from it).
THEN
Euglena is a strong proof against the theory of evolution.
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.