The 23rd Cromosome.....Evolution is Wrong

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by diamondoftheworld
 


But everything you BELIEVE to be true can be disproven or explained with actual hard evidence. At what point will you be wrong?




posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by yorkshirelad
 



which is quite ironic becasue it is viable genetic abnormalities (ie changes) that result in species change.
Not change but degeneration and I gave that explanation.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Aww god bless your cotton socks, you christians..

Such a small box you limit yourselves to, with your religion.

It's cute..



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by mainidh
 



Umm... Look back to the image... rinse, repeat.
I call that business as usual...I mean for me....



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by diamondoftheworld
 


being aware of something - simply means you are aware of it - it does not include any need to act on that awareness


An excellent quote which begs an answer.
This is what we humans are all about - we ask questions!
I believe that DNA tests have proven that 250,000 years ago our Hominid(n) ancestors had 48 chromosomes, the same as the apes at that time. Yet our next generation after the Hominid(n), (Homo Sapien, had 46 Chromosomes whereby the 3rd and 4th Chromosomes had been fused together. Our lifestyles changed also from Cavemen to Hunter Gatherers. Then, 10,000 years ago, DNA has shown that 9 of our 23 pairs of Chromosomes had altered in a way that scientists suspect could not have happened in an evolutionary way. (Here you have to imagine the the theme music from "The Twilight Zone" mysteriously begins to play in the background). At the same time we appear to have developed agricultural and constructional abilities that even today defy belief as to how and why they were built.
Whereas the above quote states that there is no need to 'act on the awareness', surely the question has to be asked as to how did this happen. It is intriguing to say the least and not easily answered.
Someone once put it in 'layman's' terms by saying that you could put horses and cows in the same field for million of years but they will not 'evolve' into 'Hows' or 'Corses' nor will they 'evolve' into anything else.
With humans it is a matter of 'knowledge' that led us to become what we are today. The question is did that knowledge 'evolve' or was it put there? Either way there is also the little matter of different skin colour, language and religion. Hardly something that could have 'evolved' from one man and one woman.
The thick plottens folks!



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Wongbeedman
 



But everything you BELIEVE to be true can be disproven or explained with actual hard evidence.
Always will be that way no matter the evidence.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by diamondoftheworld
 


There are several reasons to wear clothes and it is not just due to shame! For a few examples, the cold, the police, other peoples prejudices, conditioning, religious folk, fashion etc etc... There are plenty of people around the world that do not wear clothes...

I really fail to see your points here to be honest.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by mee30
 



There are several reasons to wear clothes and it is not just due to shame! For a few examples, the cold, the police, other peoples prejudices, conditioning, religious folk, fashion etc etc.
Still the shame is the main reason to cover the nakedness.

Maybe there are few people around the world not wearing clothes but those are ...pure.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by diamondoftheworld
 


Quoting wikipedia to debunk evolution without even really making a case for your opinion?

The only thing i seen from your post is proof of genetic mutation (evolution).



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by mainidh
 



Such a small box you limit yourselves to, with your religion.
Sorry to ask, but what is religion in your opinion?



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 



being aware of something - simply means you are aware of it
It is not that simple depend of what are you aware of.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by diamondoftheworld
 





Still the shame is the main reason to cover the nakedness. Maybe there are few people around the world not wearing clothes but those are ...pure.


i cover my nuts because they get cold.. or hows this one, I do not want fly's on my balls.. or a bee sting..yikes.. there are many reasons.. sun burnt testicles?.. no thanks.. shame? none here.

so according to your holy inspired decree naked cannibals in the forest are pure?


i guess.. why not? eating sky wizard zombie jesus flesh & drinking blood gets you eternal life in christianity..

now your derailing your own thread?



Sorry to ask, but what is religion in your opinion?

start a new topic.. so i can avoid that one too..

sorry, your ego will not be fed on this site..

done.. you have disproved nothing.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by reeferman
 



i cover my nuts because they get cold.. or hows this one, I do not want fly's on my balls.. or a bee sting..yikes..
If this is the only reason then......today shame does not exist.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by reeferman
 



so according to your holy inspired decree naked cannibals in the forest are pure
In a way...but I am afraid they are not completely naked and yes they are degenerate.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by reeferman
 



start a new topic.. so i can avoid that one too..
I will..someday!



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by reeferman
 



simply put, no. no it does not.
You just proved my theory but you will never understand how.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by diamondoftheworld
 


What theory?

So far you've pretty much used the politician strategy... say a lot, make it sound intelligent, but don't actually relay anything of value, and then act cocky about it. You really haven't conveyed anything, no matter what you think.

Here's an analogy:


Donald Duck is an amoral, and offensive individual as I am about to prove.



Duck is the common name for a large number of species in the Anatidae family of birds, which also includes swans and geese. The ducks are divided among several subfamilies in the Anatidae family; they do not represent a monophyletic group (the group of all descendants of a single common ancestral species) but a form taxon, since swans and geese are not considered ducks. Ducks are mostly aquatic birds, mostly smaller than the swans and geese, and may be found in both fresh water and sea water.


You see where I am going with this? Clearly he is a duck, so read on so I can get to my point.




The overall body plan of ducks is elongated and broad, and the ducks are also relatively long-necked, albeit not as long-necked as the geese and swans. The body shape of diving ducks varies somewhat from this in being more rounded. The bill is usually broad and contains serrated lamellae which are particularly well defined in the filter-feeding species. In the case of some fishing species the bill is long and strongly serrated.


Exactly the long neck ducks are the worst. I have concluded that Donald has a neck.

Animals have necks.




The ducks are generally monogamous, although these bonds generally last a single year only. Larger species and the more sedentary species (like fast river specialists) tend to have pair-bonds that last numerous years. Most duck species breed once a year, choosing to do so in favourable conditions (spring/summer or wet seasons).


Clearly these monogamous ducks don't like polygamous ducks.
Well I've proved my point, time to sit back and be cocky.
edit on 11-7-2012 by Osiris1953 because: Typing Gremlins



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by diamondoftheworld
 





And only then Humans started to breed.


How do you figure this? In Genesis 1, man is created both male and female, blessedly procreating, "replenishing" and subduing the earth. He is then taken to the Garden of Eden where he undergoes some type of "surgery" and Eve is created.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by cloudwatcher
 



He is then taken to the Garden of Eden where he undergoes some type of "surgery" and Eve is created.
After that and sorry no surgery just creation.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by mainidh
Aww god bless your cotton socks, you christians..

Such a small box you limit yourselves to, with your religion.

It's cute..


Spend a few decades in the church, you won't think it's cute anymore.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join