New Resarch Suggests Chimp/Human Fossil Record May Be Inaccurate Depiction Of Divergence

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
Some trick question you had there...

More smoke and mirrors from the circle jerk gang...

That's rich coming from a self proclaimed troll.

Was actually a very simple question.

Do you trust paternity tests?

That's the test done to find out if you are the father of a child. Very simple question actually.

a reply to: TerryDon79

See my previous reply...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

See my previous reply...

You mean the reply where you failed to answer a simple yes or no question?

a reply to: TerryDon79

You saying you have a paternity test that shows a change in species?
I provided an answer...
3 verifiable samples with a correlated lineage of the same species does not indicate a change in species...
Can you understand that?

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

You saying you have a paternity test that shows a change in species?
I provided an answer...
3 verifiable samples with a correlated lineage of the same species does not indicate a change in species...
Can you understand that?

That still doesn't answer a very straight-forward question. Nor does it address the question in any way.

All it does do is show your ignorance to everyone reading the thread as you can't answer a VERY simple question.

a reply to: TerryDon79

So you claim through dna profiling to have traced back far enough to have found the missing link?

It's not happening...

Still not happening...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

So you claim through dna profiling to have traced back far enough to have found the missing link?

It's not happening...

Again, nothing to do with the question.

Funny how you try and twist it so you think it makes others look stupid. Just so happens it's having the opposite effect.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

There's no such thing as 'the missing link'.

You've been fooled by other Creationists....

I have answered...
I believe a paternity test with 3 verifiable samples is an accurate portrayal of lineage...
What I am failing to see is the relevance because I know what's missing to be considered conclusive evidence to support evolution...

a reply to: Prezbo369

So you believe the Lucy conspiracy?

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

So you claim through dna profiling to have traced back far enough to have found the missing link?

It's not happening...

A. No such thing as a missing link outside the walls of AIG and other creation science propaganda mills.

B. The level of coverage able to be obtained currently via genetic testing is high enough that we know there is an as yet unknown hominid species in Africa for which we know existed via DNA yet have not found physical remains of. We can discern the difference between HSS DNA, Neanderthal DNA and Denisovan DNA in the same organism and within a few years will be able to start going farther back in time to see how much H. Erectus contributed DNA to each during admixture events as well as initially.

C. you repeating that something "isn't happening" does not make it so. Please demonstrate WHY it isn't happening if you are able.

D. You aren't going to see a " change in species" in 1000 generations let alone a single generation so your entire line of reasoning is severly devoid of logic.


and wth is a "lucy conspiracy"?

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Prezbo369

So you believe the Lucy conspiracy?

'Lucy conspiracy'????
You continue to be entertaining. A troll, but entertaining.

B sure sounds like a missing link...

You sure it wasn't a banana?

Maybe it was a carrot...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
B sure sounds like a missing link...

You sure it wasn't a banana?

Maybe it was a carrot...

Translation: "I don't understand evolution at all, but I can smirk and make fun of people who do."

Obvious troll is obvious.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Your translator is broken..
I was poking fun at yet another suggestion... too many assumptions...
I'm not saying it's impossible I'm saying I'm unconvinced...
You are simply more willing to except what's portrayed than I am...
It's not really about either side having a greater level of understanding...
It's about how many blanks your willing to fill in for it to work for you...
I'm not sold yet...
And ya I'm guilty of trolling this thread for my own amusement because I like to argue...
I do believe in God and I believe he kick started everything...
I also believe most evolutionists do not believe in God...
I think it's foolish to believe that evolution is an argument against creation or that it is proof of no such thing as God...
I believe all of Science will one day bow down to God not just as the creator but the greatest scientist of all...
And ya if evolution is the answer it's because creation allowed it to be...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
B sure sounds like a missing link...

You sure it wasn't a banana?

Maybe it was a carrot...

I don't see how B. alludes towards any missing link. Considering you keep telling others that they can't read, haven't read or their translators are broken, you may want to read things over quietly in your head a few times. I'm going out on a limb( or in this case, the troll's bridge) and assuming you are trying to tell me that the ability to ascertain an unknown genetic contributor, I.e. a hominid who we have not located physical remains for yet have genetic evidence for the hominids existence, is an allusion towards a missing link. That isn't the case at all, it's evidence of an admixture event, yes. It's evidence that the more we learn about our past, the more we realize we still have a lot to learn. But it in no way was presented as evidence of some half human half ape that (this is clearly give the impression you give when you reference a missing link ) that existed in a bubble some 6-7 MA

a reply to: peter vlar

Please elaborate how a genetic admixture event which is based on hybridization is relevant to the creation of a new species...