It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Process of Evolution is evidence of irreducible complexity

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Analbumcover
I only just found out about Haeckel recently.

Why isn't this main stream news lol? You guys fighting all the way over here and I just want the beginning of the evolution theory sorted out.

Generally things built on lies don't carry too much weight with me.

Haha I used to laugh and laugh at religious people that went against evolution. What a moron I was. I should start laughing at all the people that built their new religion based off lies.

Inb4 that was the only lie.

Yes yes. I'm sure.


So you think that old drawings of embryos from before ultrasound tech existed are the be all end all of evolution theory and the entire theory is built on that?? LMFAO!!!

How many times do I have to tell you liars, evolution is built on changes in allele frequency that usually result from genetic mutations and natural selection, both of which have been proved time and time again. Before DNA was discovered, it was built on just natural selection, because the exact mechanism for change wasn't known, but as soon as DNA was discovered and studied, the mechanisms became known and it only CONFIRMED what Darwin said. Darwin knew it happened, but didn't know how.
edit on 6 23 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Just stop the ignorance. You are out of your league here.



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

You're as ridiculous as you seem. Just saying.



posted on Jun, 24 2019 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Barcs

You're as ridiculous as you seem. Just saying.


So you got no argument at all, just insults and generalizations based on ignorance? No surprise here. Another internet armchair scientist who knows pretty much nothing about evolution, yet pretends to know more than scientists who have studied it for decades.



posted on Jun, 24 2019 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Barcs

You're as ridiculous as you seem. Just saying.


The truth hurts. Barcs just can't stand it when you show the facts about an unsubstantiated conjecture such "biological evolution theory".



posted on Jun, 24 2019 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Liars are liars bro, when you look back and it's all bull# from the bible to this new religion.

Doesn't bother me either way, I've been reaping the rewards of evolution my whole life. I just wonder why I still let you weak plebs breath my air.

Guess that was the indoctrination of telling me what's good and bad when I was a kid. Good thing I eventually started looking backwards I was able to free myself from that one.

I always believed in chaos anyway, if it's not fair for everyone why should it be fair for anyone.

Nice chat man



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Barcs

You're as ridiculous as you seem. Just saying.


The truth hurts. Barcs just can't stand it when you show the facts about an unsubstantiated conjecture such "biological evolution theory".


Unsubstantiated conjecture???

talkorigins.org...

So this evidence doesn't exist then? It's comical how desperate people are to deny proven science, yet not one has ever refuted even 1 single piece of evidence listed.



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Barcs

You're as ridiculous as you seem. Just saying.


The truth hurts. Barcs just can't stand it when you show the facts about an unsubstantiated conjecture such "biological evolution theory".


Unsubstantiated conjecture???

talkorigins.org...

So this evidence doesn't exist then? It's comical how desperate people are to deny proven science, yet not one has ever refuted even 1 single piece of evidence listed.


Ah, my fav goto website - talkorigins.

Let's take one:






29+ Evidences for Macroevolution


Prediction 5.1: Genetic change The genetic information specifies everything about an organism and its potential. Genotype specifies possible phenotypes, therefore, phenotypic change follows genetic change. This obviously should be one of the areas where evolutionary change is seen, and genetic change is truly the most important for understanding evolutionary processes.

Confirmation: Extremely extensive genetic change has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild. We have seen genomes irreversibly and heritably altered by numerous phenomena, including gene flow, random genetic drift, natural selection, and mutation. Observed mutations have occurred by mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements. Chromosomal rearrangements include genome duplication (e.g. polyploidy), unequal crossing over, inversions, translocations, fissions, fusions, chromosome duplications and chromosome deletions (Futuyma 1998, pp. 267-271, 283-294).

Potential Falsification: Once the genetic material was elucidated, it was obvious that for macroevolution to proceed vast amounts of change was necessary in the genetic material. If the general observation of geneticists was that of genomic stasis and recalcitrance to significant genetic change, it would be weighty evidence against the probability of macroevolution. For instance, it is possible that whenever we introduce mutations into an organism's genome, the DNA could back-mutate to its former state. However, the opposite is the case—the genome is incredibly plastic, and genetic change is heritable and essentially irreversible (Lewin 1999).

Prediction 5.2: Morphological change Cladistic classification, and thus, phylogenetic reconstruction, is largely based on the various distinguishing morphological characteristics of species. Macroevolution requires that organisms' morphologies have changed throughout evolutionary history; thus, we should observe morphological change and variation in modern populations.

Confirmation: There have been numerous observations of morphological change in populations of organisms (Endler 1986). Examples are the change in color of some organ, such as the yellow body or brown eyes of Drosophila, coat color in mice (Barsh 1996), scale color in fish (Houde 1988), and plumage pattern in birds (Morton 1990). Almost every imaginable heritable variation in size, length, width, or number of some physical aspect of animals has been recorded (Johnston and Selander 1973; Futuyma 1998, p. 247-262). This last fact is extremely important for common descent, since the major morphological differences between many species (e.g. species of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds) are simple alterations in size of certain aspects of their respective parahomologous structures.


Based on the findings above, can you please point to me the evidence/confirmation of a species morphing into a totally different species - meaning from fish to a bird?

Also, define exactly what the word SPECIES mean. I.e. are different kinds of birds considered species or just one EXACTING SPECIES as in bird species. In a Luddite's terminology, Bird Kind (Bird family with varieties) as opposed to Dog Kind.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Fish don't just turn into birds, LOL.

If you don't know what species means, look it up. A bird is a not a species, it's an entire class of organism. There is no such thing as a "kind," stop using biblical terms in biology.
edit on 6 26 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Except that's exactly what happened, these process evolved incrementally over billions of years.

And you have natural selection wrong. Organisms with traits better suited to their environment have a greater likelihood of surviving and reproducing to pass on those traits. Combined with descent with modification, and sexual selection and you get speciation.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: edmc^2

Fish don't just turn into birds, LOL.

If you don't know what species means, look it up. A bird is a not a species, it's an entire class of organism. There is no such thing as a "kind," stop using biblical terms in biology.


I'm surprised you didn't get it.

Ok, since you're too ignorant to understand the process: fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, to mammals, to humans.

As to species, here's why evolutionists like you struggle with the word SPECIES:


1 Introduction The species problem is not unique to virology since 150 years after the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, biologists still did not agree about what constitutes a microbial, plant, or animal species. Although the term species is used as the lowest category in all hierarchical biological classifications, what a species actually is, namely its ontology, remains an unresolved issue in the philosophy of biology (Claridge et al., 1997; Ghiselin, 1997; Stamos, 2003). Mayr (1982) declared: “There is probably no other concept in biology that has remained as consistently controversial as the species concept,” and in 1997 during an international conference on species, no less than 22 different species concepts were discussed (Mayden, 1997). Although viruses are usually not considered to be alive (Van Regenmortel, 2016a), they are recognized as biological entities and are classified using the categories species, genus, family, and order universally used in biology. The question of what a virus species actually is, is a problem of logical and lexical semantics. In the case of genera and families, virologists readily admit that these categories are conceptual, abstract constructions of the mind, and they do not confuse them with the real objects they encounter in their daily handling of viruses. They are fully aware that a virus family, for instance, cannot be purified by centrifugation, sequenced, or visualized by electron microscopy since it is an imaginary, conceptual creation of the mind, and not a physical entity.


read the rest here:

www.sciencedirect.com...



From evolution website: talkorigins




Claim CB801: Complaints about creationists not defining "kind" are unfair since evolutionists can't define "species" consistently. Response: Species are expected often to have fuzzy and imprecise boundaries because evolution is ongoing. Some species are in the process of forming; others are recently formed and still difficult to interpret. The complexities of biology add further complications. Many pairs of species remain distinct despite a small amount of hybridization between them. Some groups are asexual or frequently produce asexual strains, so how many species to split them into becomes problematical. Creation, defining things as kinds that were created once and for all, implies that all species should be clearly demarcated and that there should be a clear and universal definition of kind or species. Since there is not, creationism, not evolutionary theory, has something to explain. Different definitions of species serve different purposes. Species concepts are used both as taxonomic units, for identification and classification, and as theoretical concepts, for modeling and explaining. There is a great deal of overlap between the two purposes, but a definition that serves one is not necessarily the best for the other. Furthermore, there are practical considerations that call for different species criteria as well. Species definitions applied to fossils, for example, cannot be based on genetics or behavior because those traits do not fossilize.


Now back to the question you ignored:

Based on the findings from the website you've provided -below- (my fav btw), can you please point to me the evidence/confirmation of a species morphing into a totally different species: fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, to mammals, to humans. You can jump from birds to humans if you want to.




29+ Evidences for Macroevolution Prediction 5.1: Genetic change The genetic information specifies everything about an organism and its potential. Genotype specifies possible phenotypes, therefore, phenotypic change follows genetic change. This obviously should be one of the areas where evolutionary change is seen, and genetic change is truly the most important for understanding evolutionary processes. Confirmation: Extremely extensive genetic change has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild. We have seen genomes irreversibly and heritably altered by numerous phenomena, including gene flow, random genetic drift, natural selection, and mutation. Observed mutations have occurred by mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements. Chromosomal rearrangements include genome duplication (e.g. polyploidy), unequal crossing over, inversions, translocations, fissions, fusions, chromosome duplications and chromosome deletions (Futuyma 1998, pp. 267-271, 283-294). Potential Falsification: Once the genetic material was elucidated, it was obvious that for macroevolution to proceed vast amounts of change was necessary in the genetic material. If the general observation of geneticists was that of genomic stasis and recalcitrance to significant genetic change, it would be weighty evidence against the probability of macroevolution. For instance, it is possible that whenever we introduce mutations into an organism's genome, the DNA could back-mutate to its former state. However, the opposite is the case—the genome is incredibly plastic, and genetic change is heritable and essentially irreversible (Lewin 1999). Prediction 5.2: Morphological change Cladistic classification, and thus, phylogenetic reconstruction, is largely based on the various distinguishing morphological characteristics of species. Macroevolution requires that organisms' morphologies have changed throughout evolutionary history; thus, we should observe morphological change and variation in modern populations. Confirmation: There have been numerous observations of morphological change in populations of organisms (Endler 1986). Examples are the change in color of some organ, such as the yellow body or brown eyes of Drosophila, coat color in mice (Barsh 1996), scale color in fish (Houde 1988), and plumage pattern in birds (Morton 1990). Almost every imaginable heritable variation in size, length, width, or number of some physical aspect of animals has been recorded (Johnston and Selander 1973; Futuyma 1998, p. 247-262). This last fact is extremely important for common descent, since the major morphological differences between many species (e.g. species of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds) are simple alterations in size of certain aspects of their respective parahomologous structures.



posted on Jun, 27 2019 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
Based on the findings from the website you've provided -below- (my fav btw), can you please point to me the evidence/confirmation of a species morphing into a totally different species: fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, to mammals, to humans. You can jump from birds to humans if you want to.


The evidence was posted and you didn't address a lick of it. You quoted it but said nothing in response to any research at all.

en.wikipedia.org...

Tons of evidence for many transitions. You are just in denial and it's funny. You pretend to refute evidence but didn't refute a single goddamn thing, you just repeated your original claim. You didn't read any of it.



posted on Jun, 27 2019 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Show actual pictures of the remains found, not artist's renditions, and tell us why they can unambiguously be identified as a transitional fossil.



posted on Jun, 27 2019 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton


Two Early Cretaceous Fossils Document Transitional Stages in Alvarezsaurian Dinosaur Evolution
www.sciencedirect.com...




Highlights
• Two new alvarezsaurian dinosaurs are described from Northwest China
• They are intermediate between Late Jurassic and Late Cretaceous alvarezsaurians
• They showcase the evolution of highly specialized alvarezsaurian forelimb
• Specialized alvarezsaurian forelimb morphology evolved slowly, in a mosaic fashion



Now remember Coop - don't respond with any well researched contradicting evidence. The idiot OP never does that - so just remember - FOLLOW YOUR LEADER!!



posted on Jun, 28 2019 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


Two Early Cretaceous Fossils Document Transitional Stages in Alvarezsaurian Dinosaur Evolution
www.sciencedirect.com...




Highlights
• Two new alvarezsaurian dinosaurs are described from Northwest China
• They are intermediate between Late Jurassic and Late Cretaceous alvarezsaurians
• They showcase the evolution of highly specialized alvarezsaurian forelimb
• Specialized alvarezsaurian forelimb morphology evolved slowly, in a mosaic fashion



Now remember Coop - don't respond with any well researched contradicting evidence. The idiot OP never does that - so just remember - FOLLOW YOUR LEADER!!




In my prior post I asked for fossils that were not an artist's renditions. Do you have Any pictures of the actual fossils? Like real evidence? Judging from the graphic, they are determining evolutionary relation by morphological similarities between toe bones. But since I can't see any actual fossils I can't judge the empirical evidence.

So the only thing this proves is that you jump to conclusions and believe everything the white coats say, even with lucid evidence lacking entirely.

the fact that people gave you stars for that post also shows how blindly they too will jump to conclusions and support anything pro-evolutionists say.
edit on 28-6-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2019 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
Based on the findings from the website you've provided -below- (my fav btw), can you please point to me the evidence/confirmation of a species morphing into a totally different species: fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, to mammals, to humans. You can jump from birds to humans if you want to.


The evidence was posted and you didn't address a lick of it. You quoted it but said nothing in response to any research at all.

en.wikipedia.org...

Tons of evidence for many transitions. You are just in denial and it's funny. You pretend to refute evidence but didn't refute a single goddamn thing, you just repeated your original claim. You didn't read any of it.



Man, that pretty much took most my posting time for a day or two going through all of these so-called "evidence" of yours.

The first question - have you really gone through all of these pieces of evidence?

Second - and you're convinced these are real evidence even though they happened millions of years ago?

If so, well, I have a golden bridge deck in diamonds in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell you.

You're too gullible. Honestly.

Here's why.

What are the chances that ALL of the species cited in that Wiki article are just varieties?

Zero chance? 1%, 2% 50% 80% 99.9%?

For example, let's take a look at Cephalopods

(ceph·a·lo·pod
[ˈsefələˌpäd]
NOUN
cephalopods (plural noun)
an active predatory mollusk of the large class Cephalopoda, such as an octopus or squid.)
www.bing.com...


Cephalopods Further information: cephalopods The Cephalopod Evolutionary Series Appearance Taxa Relationships Status Description Location Image 296 Ma Genus Pohlsepia The earliest described octopod. 164 Ma Genus: Proteroctopus A primitive octopod. France 164.7 Ma Genus: Vampyronassa An early member of the Vampyromorphida. France Vampylarge.JPG 94.3 Ma Genus: Palaeoctopus A primitive octopod. Mexico


en.wikipedia.org...

List of Cephalopods: Octopus


Octopus is the largest genus of octopuses, comprising more than 100 species. These species are widespread throughout the world's oceans. Many species formerly placed in the genus Octopus are now assigned to other genera within the family Octopodidae.[1][2] The word is derived from the Greek number eight, "oktō" (ὀκτώ) and "pous, podos" (πούς, ποδός) which means feet. Species Octopus alatus (Sasaki, 1920) (taxon inquirendum) Octopus alecto Berry, 1953 Octopus araneoides * Iw. Taki, 1964 (taxon inquirendum) Octopus arborescens Hoyle, 1904 (taxon inquirendum) Octopus argus Krauss, 1848 Octopus australis Hoyle, 1885 – hammer octopus Octopus balboai Voss, 1971 Octopus berenice Gray, 1849 Octopus berrima Stanks & Norman, 1992 – southern keeled octopus Octopus bimaculatus Verrill, 1883 – California two-spot octopus or Verrill's two-spot octopus Octopus bimaculoides Pickford & McConnaughey, 1949 – California two-spot octopus Octopus bocki Adam, 1941 – Bock's pygmy octopus Octopus briareus Robson, 1929 – Caribbean reef octopus Octopus bulbus Norman, 2001 Octopus californicus Berry, 1911 – North Pacific bigeye octopus Octopus campbelli Smith, 1902 Octopus chierchiae Jatta, 1889 – Lesser Pacific Striped Octopus Octopus conispadiceus Sasaki, 1917 – chestnut octopus Octopus cyanea Gray, 1849 – big blue octopus or Cyane's octopus, Octopus diminutus Kaneko & Kubodera, 2008[3] Octopus favonius Gray, 1849 Octopus filamentosus Blainville, 1826 (taxon inquirendum) Octopus filosus Howell, 1867 Octopus fitchi Berry, 1953 – Fitch's pygmy octopus Octopus fujitai Sasaki, 1929 (taxon inquirendum) Octopus gardineri Hoyle, 1905 Octopus glob...dera, 2005 Octopus longispadiceus (Sasaki, 1917) (taxon inquirendum) Octopus mariles Huffard, 2007[4] Octopus maya Voss & Solís, 1966 – Mexican four-eyed octopus Octopus mercatoris Adam, 1937 Octopus mernoo O'Shea, 1999 Octopus microphthalmus Goodrich, 1896 Octopus micropyrsus Berry, 1953 – California Lilliput octopus Octopus micros Norman, 2001 Octopus mimus Gould, 1852 Octopus minor (Sasaki, 1920) (taxon inquirendum) O. m. minor (Sasaki, 1920) · accepted, alternate representation Octopus mutilans Taki, 1942 Octopus nanhaiensis Dong, 1976 (taxon inquirendum) Octopus nanus Adam, 1973 Octopus niveus Lesson, 1831 (taxon inquirendum) Octopus occidentalis Steenstrup in Hoyle, 1885 Octopus ochotensis (Sasaki, 1920) (taxon inquirendum) Octopus oculifer Hoyle, 1904 – Galapagos reef octopus Octopus oliveri (Berry, 1914) Octopus oshimai (Sasaki, 1929) (taxon inquirendum) Octopus pallidus Hoyle, 1885 – pale octopus Octopus parvus Sasaki, 1917 – Japanese pygmy octopus Octopus penicillifer Berry, 1954 Octopus pentherinus Rochebrune & Mabille, 1889 (nomen dubium) Octopus prashadi Adam, 1939 (taxon inquirendum) Octopus pricei * Berry, 1913 (taxon inquirendum) Octopus pumilus Norman & Sweeney, 1997 Octopus pyrum Norman, Hochberg & C. C. Lu, 1997 Octopus rubescens Berry, 1953 – East Pacific red octopus Octopus salutii Vérany, 1836 – spider octopus Octopus sanctaehelenae Robson, 1929 Octopus sasakii Taki, 1942 (taxon inquirendum) Octopus selene Voss, 1971 – moon octopus Octopus stictochrus Voss, 1971 Octopus spinosus Sasaki, 1920 (taxon inquirendum) Octopus superciliosus frilled pygmy octopus Octopus tehuelchus d'Orbigny, 1834 – Tehuelche or Patagonian octopus Octopus tenebricus Smith, 1884 Octopus tetricus Gould, 1852 – gloomy octopus or common Sydney octopus Octopus tsugarensis Sasaki, 1920 (taxon inquirendum) Octopus validus Sasaki, 1920 (taxon inquirendum) Octopus veligero Berry, 1953 – veiled octopus Octopus verrucosus Hoyle, 1885 Octopus vitiensis Hoyle, 1885 – bighead octopus Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, 1797 – common octopus Octopus warringa Stranks, 1990 – club pygmy octopus Octopus wolfi (Wülker, 1913) – star-sucker pygmy octopus Octopus yendoi (Sasaki, 1920) (taxon inquirendum) Octopus zonatus Voss, 1968 – Atlantic banded octopus


en.wikipedia.org...(genus)

Based on the list of Octopus alone, I'd say there's a high chance that these:


Cephalopods Further information: cephalopods The Cephalopod Evolutionary Series Appearance Taxa Relationships Status Description Location Image 296 Ma Genus Pohlsepia The earliest described octopod. 164 Ma Genus: Proteroctopus A primitive octopod. France 164.7 Ma Genus: Vampyronassa An early member of the Vampyromorphida. France Vampylarge.JPG 94.3 Ma Genus: Palaeoctopus A primitive octopod. Mexico


Squid:

World squid catch in 2002[64] Species Family Common name Catch tonnes Percent Loligo gahi or Doryteuthis gahi Loliginidae Patagonian squid 24,976 1.1 Loligo pealei Loliginidae Longfin inshore squid 16,684 0.8 Common squid nei Loliginidae 225,958 10.3 Ommastrephes bartramii Ommastrephidae Neon flying squid 22,483 1.0 Illex argentinus Ommastrephidae Argentine shortfin squid 511,087 23.3 Dosidicus gigas Ommastrephidae Humboldt squid 406,356 18.6 Todarodes pacificus Ommastrephidae Japanese flying squid 504,438 23.0 Nototodarus sloanii Ommastrephidae Wellington flying squid 62,234 2.8 Squid nei Various 414,990 18.6 Total squid 2,189,206 100.0


... are just VARIETIES.



posted on Jun, 28 2019 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




Do you have Any pictures of the actual fossils? Like real evidence?


Why don't you read the article and the references? You really need help to figure out where the fossils are?



posted on Jun, 29 2019 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

Why don't you read the article and the references? You really need help to figure out where the fossils are?


I'm not paying 30$ to be underwhelmed by a couple bones that are assumed to be transitional fossils. You were the one who posted the link, if you have access to the article post the pictures of the bones here. If you don't have access, then I'm curious why you were even using it as a reference if you didn't look at the empirical data yourself. It indicates you blindly believe whatever the paper says, without discerning it on your own.



posted on Jun, 29 2019 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Why don't you read the article and the references? You really need help to figure out where the fossils are?


I'm not paying 30$ to be underwhelmed by a couple bones that are assumed to be transitional fossils. You were the one who posted the link, if you have access to the article post the pictures of the bones here. If you don't have access, then I'm curious why you were even using it as a reference if you didn't look at the empirical data yourself. It indicates you blindly believe whatever the paper says, without discerning it on your own.


Exactly, quoting a source that you have to pay to read and that you haven't even paid for is just silly. If you have access and it supports your argument, which there's a 0% chance that it does, still present something.



posted on Jun, 29 2019 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton



You and the OP claim to be "scientists" - but you don't even know how to find a research paper!

Two Early Cretaceous Fossils Document Transitional
Stages in Alvarezsaurian Dinosaur Evolution


sci-hub.se...









Don't bother to respond - I already know the response:

"But, but, but... they didn't find the whole, intact dinosaur eating a cheeseburger while playing chess!!! -- Therefore, we say NO EVIDENCE!!!"

You two stuffed shirts need to take up a hobby other than science - how about a new cheeseburger recipe!!


edit on 29-6-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join