[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 65 KB, 500x437, monkeys.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3421490 No.3421490 [Reply] [Original]

Checkmate atheists

>> No.3421492

>>3421490
No one believes in evolution.

>> No.3421499

Well, why atheists? Can't your all-powerful intellect come up with a satisfactory answer?

>> No.3421510

a troll not even worth feeding

>> No.3421517

>>3421510
>i can't answer so I'll just call him a troll
No wonder atheists are always so angry.

>> No.3421521

a troll implying he's not a troll not even worth feeding

>> No.3421522

Its really easy, but a trolls brain isn't big enough to understand.

>> No.3421524

Nobody says we evolved from monkeys.

3/10 made me reply.

>> No.3421528

>>3421521
Even if I was a troll it doesn't change the fact that you don't have an answer for this.
Checkmate darwinists.

>> No.3421529

>>3421524
Yeah evolutionists do. Try to hide your own beliefs out of embarrassment, atheist?

>> No.3421531

>>3421522
i don't think you understand what a troll is
i think you're a stupid faggot

>> No.3421532

>>3421528

At least they stopped saying "If we evolved from apes why are there still apes". Seems like they are wising up, at least a little bit....

anyways, enjoy your 15 day ban.

>> No.3421536

>>3421529
I don't think you know what monkeys are.

>> No.3421543

Obviously someone doesn't understand natural selection.

>> No.3421548

>>3421532
>>3421536
Apes, monkeys, same thing. A monkey can't become anything more than monkey, it's impossible. And if it was possible we wouldn't still have monkeys.
Q.E.D.

>> No.3421559

>>3421528
>3421528
>3421528 / 8192 = 417.66992
>417.666992 - 417.000992 =0.666
>0.666 x 1000 = 666
>666

Confirmed for satanist troll.

TO HELL WITH THEE DEMON!

>> No.3421563

>>3421548
>Apes, monkeys, same thing.
Nice.

>> No.3421573

I see a lot of darwinist anger, but no one who can answer my question.
Also where are the fossils of animals becoming other animals? If evolutionists are right, there should be a ton, instead, nothing.

>> No.3421587

>>3421573
Every fossil is a fossil of an animal becoming another animal.

>> No.3421591

If Man was created from dirt, then why is there still dirt?

>> No.3421596
File: 55 KB, 500x500, crocoduck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3421596

>>3421587
Uh, no it's not. Dogs are still dogs, cats are still cats.
Tell me when you find something like this.

>> No.3421603

That's extremely misleading. Humans don't share a common ancestor with monkeys; they share one with the great apes.

>> No.3421605

>>3421548


>Apes, monkeys same thing.

>> No.3421607

>>3421596
So you're asking me to show you a dog that isn't a dog or a cat that isn't a cat?

Sure is herp derp.

>> No.3421613

>>3421596
Wow, it's like you're actually pretending not to understand him at all.

All fossils are transitional fossils, because all species change over time.

>> No.3421616

>>3421607
But that's what evolutionists claim exist.
You see why evolution is impossible now?

>> No.3421617

>>3421596
It's called a "transitional fossil," a favorite "counterpoint" among creationists and the like. What they don't understand is that -every- fossil is a transitional fossil; there are no clear-cut transitions from one creature to the next, only minute changes, much like the infinite number of points between two whole numbers.

>> No.3421623

>>3421616
Show me an example of anywhere someone says that's the case.

>> No.3421634

>>3421616
>PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION BELIEVE THIS COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL IDEA
>"No we don't"
>YES YOU DO, HOW DARE YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU DO OR DON'T BELIEVE, YOU BELIEVE THIS IMPOSSIBLE IDEA

>> No.3421635

>>3421617
This. However, due to punctuated equilibrium effects, we often don't have as many fossils (per unit of "change") for the fast-changing periods. So it can give the illusion of "sudden" switches, though it still takes many thousand generations.

>> No.3421633

>>3421617
But if there's infinite points than you'd never reach the other number
Therefore macro evolution is impossible. Only variation within kinds can happen.

>> No.3421639

>>3421633
Holy shit, did you just try to use Zeno's paradox to argue against evolution?

>> No.3421642

>>3421559
I laughed so hard.

>> No.3421643

>>3421633
Therefore addition is impossible.

>THERE ARE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF POINTS BETWEEN 1 AND 2 SO YOU CAN NEVER COUNT TO 2

Keep on digging.

>> No.3421645

>Believe in talking snakes
>"ANSWER THIS ONE, EVOLUTIONISTS!!!"

>> No.3421653
File: 76 KB, 1141x538, hominids2_big.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3421653

>>3421490

For the same reason some people still live like animals, or in poverty, or under super oppressive regimes. One group improving their situation doesn't mean that all groups improve in the same way at the same rate.

Also, no one claims that amphibians mysteriously give birth to dogs, or that any other noticeable change occurs from one generation to the next. If you're going to ask question, do basic research first please. Like ask google image for transitional fossils.

>> No.3421658

>>3421613
name one

>> No.3421659

If Eve came from a rib, why are there still ribs?

Checkmate theists

>> No.3421666

>>3421653
organize skulls on shelves

make conclusions about the universe

>> No.3421670

>>3421643
Yeah but you'd have to move in whole numbers otherwise you'd be moving among infinite points and you'd never get there. And you just said evolution can only happen gradually so that can't be the case.
Therefore by your own logic macro evolution is impossible

>> No.3421671

>>3421658
Name one species that has changed over time?

Nigga u srs? All of them. Some have "changed" less because they've hit very stable niches - like crocodiles, sharks, and ants. But cite one that has changed noticeably? Man, so many to choose...

Humans.

>> No.3421674

>>3421671
no, name one crocoduck

>> No.3421677

>>3421670
Zeno's paradox doesn't impress anyone, stop trying. Next you'll be telling me that calculus is a lie.

>> No.3421678

>>3421671
Yeah, they all changed with-in there kinds but they NEVER became another animal.
There is exactly 0 evidence for macro evolution and you know it

>> No.3421688
File: 71 KB, 640x512, crocoduck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3421688

>>3421674
I named him Fred.

>> No.3421690
File: 10 KB, 285x237, 1311035403582.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3421690

If America came from England, WHY IS THERE STILL ENGLAND?!?!?

Checkmate, eurofags.

>> No.3421692

The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote:

I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them … . I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.2

2 C. Patterson, letter to Luther D. Sunderland, 10 April 1979, as published in Darwin’s Enigma (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 4th ed. 1988), p. 89.

>> No.3421697

>>3421688
Fred is the worst name for a Crocoduck ever.

Name him Gigantasaurus Duckimus.

>> No.3421700

>>3421697
Bitch, Fred will bite your ankle and fly away.

>> No.3421702

>>3421666
read 2,000 year old book

make conclusions about the universe

>> No.3421703

>>3421692
>>3421678
Yep. Macro-evolution has been completely debunked. Even evolutionary biologists won't defend it. Why do you still buy into it? Because you have FAITH in evolution?

>> No.3421714
File: 23 KB, 362x450, bald7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3421714

If bald people come from people with hair, why are there still people with hair?

>> No.3421722

>>3421700
pfff, he'll just go along the lawn bumping his nose.

>> No.3421727

>>3421702
read 4,000 year old answer book

be hated by people without teacher's edition

>> No.3421730

>>3421722
Fred is sensitive about his trouble keeping his nose clean. Don't be mean.

>> No.3421738

So no evolutionist can actually answer the first question, or explain the lack of transitional fossils?
Thought so

>> No.3421742

>>3421730
maybe he would man the fuck up if you called him GIGANTOSAURUS DUCKIMUS!!!

>> No.3421759

>>3421738
>hurr, I'm going to ignore all the posts in the thread and contribute my dissatisfaction anyway

>> No.3421765

Since no evolutionists can answer my question, or provide a single transitional fossil, I'm going to declare victory.

>> No.3421767

>>3421765
Enjoy your victory.

>> No.3421768

>>3421759
Neither of my questions were ever answered, all you guys did was dodge the question.
Nice try though

>> No.3421771

>>3421765
Victory of what? A god of the gaps?

>> No.3421772

>>3421767
Agreed. He has defeated us, and should enjoy the sense of superiority he so richly deserves.

>> No.3421777

>>3421771
there is no god of the gaps; that is a strawman

making up theories that other people at the time can't debunk isn't the same thing as finding out the truth; the sooner you learn that, the more profitable your life will be

>> No.3421779

>>3421771
Hush! You are speaking to your obvious superior!

Maybe if we leave him alone he won't harm our puny frail minds further.

>> No.3421782

>>3421777
I'm pretty sure that's his point, bro.

>> No.3421783

>>3421779
My apologies! Clearly we are not fit to post in the presence of greatness.

>> No.3421790

>>3421782

trip 777 says i'm right, neener neener

>> No.3421793

>>3421790
I concede humbly and shamefully in the face of your obvious dominance.

>> No.3421794

>>3421490
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4hQRwOv604

>> No.3421798
File: 28 KB, 328x317, 1296196204382.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3421798

>>3421790
>neener neener

>> No.3421818

>>3421794
That was just a bunch of crap that didn't answer my question by an obese neckbeard. try harder darwinists

>> No.3421820

>>3421793
i trust that includes renaming Fred

>> No.3421828

So is anyone even going to try to answer my question? It's boring if you just give up. I know the answer will probably sound stupid but...

>> No.3421831

ITT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS-7Rwd-uNk

>> No.3421833

>>3421820
;_;

>> No.3421836

>>3421828
Which question?

>> No.3421841

>>3421833
ok, ok, Fred it is.

sheesh

>> No.3421842

>>3421836
1. If humans evolved from apes why are there still apes?
2. why are there no transitional fossils?

>> No.3421848

>>3421836
the one about why people still have faith in macro evolution, knowing that there is no direct evidence for it, and that all the so-called "evidence" for macro (not micro) evolution is bogus

oh, and the proper name for a Crocoduck, if you want it to be able to leave the house once it hits 18, and not just lie about eating hot pockets and playing WoW.

>> No.3421858

>>3421848
>the one about why people still have faith in macro evolution, knowing that there is no direct evidence for it, and that all the so-called "evidence" for macro (not micro) evolution is bogus
Yeah that too. Make that my third question.

>> No.3421863

first question is now dead

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS-7Rwd-uNk&t=7m9s

>> No.3421865

>>3421858
i can answer that; men prefer the darkness, because of their sins. men avoid the light, because the light shows their sins. since all men sin, the only men who do not fear the light are the ones who have had all of their sins forgiven.

without a loving and just God, the universe is a scary huge place

>> No.3421866

>>3421848
You might want to google "instances of observed speciation" before you say anything else about macro-evolution being impossible and there being no evidence for it.
And if you counter with "speciation is not macro-evolution!" I'll know for sure that you're trolling.

>> No.3421871

>>3421863
you're probably too young to remember, but the evolutionists of the past generation or two actually did advocate that men evolved from monkeys. unable to answer why there were still monkeys, a "missing link" theory was floated up as a trial balloon.

that "missing link" is still missing, yet we have more evidence than ever regarding the propagation and spread of mammal life on earth.

the "missing link" will be found at about the same time as the "Oort cloud", which is to say, never

>> No.3421874

and all the women comes from a rib lolz

>> No.3421894

>>3421866
like with breeding programs? Great Danes and Poodles are still dogs, right?

or like nuking fruit flies with gamma rays to produce 3 winged fruit flies? that kind of speciation?

i'm afraid the topic is a little too broad for my little pea brain

>> No.3421904

>>3421871
>unable to answer why there were still monkeys, a "missing link" theory was floated up as a trial balloon.
Oh boy where do I start with this. Scientists NEVER had a problem with there still being apes because evolution is a like tree, not a ladder. New species branch off from the older ones. Entire species don't automatically move from one form to the next in a totally linear fashion like in pokemon.
Also the transition between great apes and modern man is as well documented as anything else in the fossil record.

>> No.3421906

>>3421874
no, just the one, but she fucked us all up real good

>> No.3421912

>>3421904
agreed, which is to say, no real evidence whatsoever

lol

>> No.3421921

>>3421912
Nice argument from ignorance there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

>> No.3421923

>>3421904
goes back a ways, dude

The first debates about the nature of human evolution arose between Thomas Huxley and Richard Owen. Huxley argued for human evolution from apes by illustrating many of the similarities and differences between humans and apes, and did so particularly in his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature.

>> No.3421926

OP please explain how do you see the creation of humanity, who created it, and and how those first humans looked like.

>> No.3421932

>>3421921
lol

This documentation needs attention from an expert on the subject. See the talk page for details. WikiProject Paleontology or the Paleontology Portal may be able to help recruit an expert. (April 2010)

>> No.3421935

>>3421921
did you even read the lolwiki?

As noted already by Darwin, the fossil record is woefully incomplete.[1]

^ Darwin, C (1859) On the Origin of Species. Chapter 10: On the Imperfection of the Geological Record.

>> No.3421938

>>3421923
Um, so? How is that relevant to my point that scientists never had an issue with there still being apes? Now you're just grasping at straws

>> No.3421939

"so long as organisms are able to compete for resources and survive long enough to reproduce and are prolific... they don't go extinct"

your response
>>3421871
you're probably too young to remember,(irrelevant reference to age that implies assumptions beyond what has been presented, possible authoritarian psyche and/or some childishly veiled insult)

but the evolutionists of the past generation or two actually did advocate that men evolved from monkeys. (go deal with them. after you acknowledge or refute my answer to your first 'question') unable to answer why there were still monkeys, (because some monkeys continued eating and fucking) a "missing link" theory was floated up as a trial balloon. (all of this starts to get into your questioning of macro evolution, not the idiotic question, "huuurrr duuurrrrr, why for did sum aminals keep eading and fuuging!? chexmates atheests!"

inb4 not mad; also not atheist

that "missing link" is still missing, yet we have more evidence than ever regarding the propagation and spread of mammal life on earth.

the "missing link" will be found at about the same time as the "Oort cloud", which is to say, never
*yawn* i'll think i'll go for a swim now

>> No.3421946

>>3421935
Did you even read what you were citing?
> (1859
Because no new discoveries were made in the fossil record in the past 150 years right?
Now I'm sure you're trolling

>> No.3421949

>Exact same thread posted every day
>90 replies

What the fuck /sci/?

>> No.3421953

>>3421926
not OP, but easy question

>OP please explain how do you see the creation of humanity, who created it, and and how those first humans looked like.

On the sixth day of creation, about 6000 years ago, God formed man from the dirt of the earth, and breathed life into him. Thus was made Adam. At some point, God caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep, took one of Adam's ribs, and created Eve.

Adam and Eve were probably beautiful even by today's standards, and identical to us, but for the lack of an umbilicus.

>> No.3421957

>>3421842

okey... imma gonna try this shit.

1.- we didnt evolve from apes. we evolve from a common ancestor from apes and humans. anyway, even if we would evolved from apes, since its a big specie, other apes from other parts wouldnt necessary evolve. it all depends on how the genetic code goes throw the generations. therefore, a generation of one group of apes couldnt provide the mutated DNA to the other groups.


2.- i can mention many transistion fossil. like the Tiktaalik. its like a kind of weird fish, found and dated on a time between the sea animals and the earth animals. it have like "legs" that looks like a fish-thing. its like a fish that walks. weird shit.

>> No.3421961

>>3421935
>Quote on the current state of scientific findings from a century and a half ago
Okay, troll detected. You had me going for awhile but you just made it too obvious there.

>> No.3421965

>>3421938
it's a tough question to answer. if man developed from monkeys, why monkeys? too stupid to make the leap to men?

so you sidestep and, without any evidence, declare that there must be a common ancestor, because men and monkeys are so similar.

this, of course, is the racist view that black people are similar if not lower than monkeys.

that's right. evolution is racist.

>> No.3421975

>>3421939
try to breathe underwater and evolve into a fish

could happen, amirite?

>> No.3421976

>>3421965
Okay first, you're using a quote from 1863 to try and argue against modern scientific findings.
Second, research the fossil record of hominids, it's very, very well documented.

>> No.3421983

>>3421946
almost all of the fossils have been found in the last 150 years; nobody dug up, say, dinosaurs, until the mid 19th century

and yet, there are cave drawings of dinosaur hunts on walls that predate Christ

go figure. man, and dinosaurs, in the same cave drawings

wow, our ancestors had some vivid imaginations, amirite? i mean, to picture a triceratops without having actually seen one, as they were separated by a gulf of tens of millions of years....

lol

God did it, bible is right. Again.

>> No.3421984

>>3421965
>it's a tough question to answer. if man developed from monkeys, why monkeys? too stupid to make the leap to men?
No it's not, it's been answered like a dozen times in this thread alone. Populations branch, they don't all change at once in a linear fashion. For evidence of this, look up ring species.
It's like I'm talking to a five year old here

>> No.3421990
File: 56 KB, 120x120, 130648114444.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3421990

>>3421953
>Adam and Eve were probably beautiful even by today's standards
>probably
>PROBABLY

Where's your proof now, creationists?

>> No.3421992

>>3421957
yeah, they used to trot out the extinct coalanth as a missing link, a fish with fins for feet, until someone caught a living one about 90 years ago.

science. why so wrong? and why so many people believe anyway?

>> No.3421999

>>3421961
so, you're arguing that the current state of evolutionary biology refutes Darwin?

lol

nice

>> No.3422006

>>3421984
what populations branch? monkeys and men? what's the tree they branched off of?

do you see how it is hypothetical?

do you see that someone is trying to tell you that you are just a smart monkey, with no inherent value as a human being?

do you think that is an accident?

>> No.3422010

>>3421975
>implying that i'm not already super human

>> No.3422011

>>3421999
>refutes darwin
Uh, no. When darwin said the fossil record is lacking, that was before a large amount of discoveries were made, making that statement moot by todays standards. Learn to read.
Also, evolutionary theory doesn't end with Darwin. He made the framework, but the details got filled in later when genetics and biology and paleontology became for advanced.

>> No.3422013

>>3421990
tell you what. when i get to heaven, i'll look up Adam and Eve, note whether or not they're beautiful, and shout into the lake of burning fire that you're in whether they are Hot or Not

k?

>> No.3422014

>>3421999
so, you're arguing that the current state of physics refutes Newton?

lol

nice

>> No.3422017

>>3421490
>checkmate atheists
>religitard thread oh no-
>106 replies

I love you /sci/.

>> No.3422020

>>3422011
oh, i see. Darwin has been proven correct by all of the findings of the past 150 years.

and not disproven by the complete lack of actual transitional fossils that his theory predicted.

nice. Darwin was right, but without proof, and we now have that proof, even if we can't show it to you because we're still making it up.

>> No.3422022

>>3422006
Hypothetical? you've already been linked to the record of hominid fossils. I've shown the evidence, and instead of refuting it you've just ignored it. Your only argument now is arguing from ignorance.

>> No.3422039

>>3422014
i'm quite fond of the laws of thermodynamics, and i'm not willing to throw them into the ash heap just so i can believe something came from nothing, and things get more ordered over time, thank you very much.

>> No.3422051

>>3421992
>>3421992

if a specie evolves to another, it doesnt necessary means that absolutely all the specimens of that specie evolves in the same way, at the same time. if the specie lives in many places, the mutated gene can never reach that group far-away.

its not like magic gives the mutated DNA to all the specimens of the specie.

>> No.3422055

>>3422022
how so? finch beaks get thicker when the food is harder to find? that's your proof? finch beaks?

how about turtle shells? have they changed? ever? don't they show that the earliest sea turtles are spot on to modern turtles? and don't turtles leave clearer fossils than other animals?

look, i don't study this shit for a living, i just see time and again how complete nonsense is offered up as "proof" of "evolution", whatever evolution means.

i just like pointing out that evolution is a faith based religion, and a false one at that, with no god but nature and chance, and no promise of an afterlife.

what a gyp

>> No.3422058

>>3422039
Evolution doesn't say something came from nothing, and neither does the big bang for that matter. And the second law of thermodynamics, something creationists love quoting without understanding the meaning of, only applies to closed systems.
Though it's hilarious you're trying to use science that you don't fully understand to disprove science that you don't understand at all.

>> No.3422065
File: 1 KB, 125x125, 1296192380290.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3422065

>>3422013
>when i get to heaven

>> No.3422072

>>3422051
and yet, the resounding silence to show that even one species of creature has turned itself into another is deafening

i'm not talking about fish that can't fuck their cousins; i'm talking about fish turning into lizards, or dinosaurs turning into birds. by chance, all things should be possible. and yet, no evidence.

by creation, all things procreate after their own kind, which we see everywhere. fish have fish babies. birds lay eggs that baby birds have to break out of. people have babies. one single cell amoeba splits into two single cell amoebas.

don't drink the kool-aid; none of this stuff is "proven", and none of it should be taken on faith

>> No.3422081

>>3422039
>and i'm not willing to throw them into the ash heap just so i can believe something came from nothing
But as a creationist, that is EXACTLY what you believe. Coincidentally, this is not what proponents of evolution believe, at all. Keep digging yourself deeper though, creationist.

>> No.3422082
File: 87 KB, 660x500, obeyAllTrafficSigns.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3422082

spider man thread?

spider man thread.

>> No.3422093

>>3422072


how about the acanthostega? or the ambulocetus?

>> No.3422094

>>3422072
You can say there's no evidence, but when you're totally ignorant of the genetic and fossil record and refuse to educate yourself all it does is highlight your own stupidity.
And since you have no actual arguments left I think it's time to just let spiderman take over this thread

>> No.3422098

>>3422058
why yes, yes it does. that cripple crapping in his pants said that the universe probably created itself out of nothing due to gravity

yup, gravity

explaining an infinite system that has not yet reached heat death is logically impossible, but you keep on trying, and drinking that kool-aid, just so you can think of yourself as worthless.

what a life you must lead.

>> No.3422104

>>3422081
you're right. i should have said, without supernatural intervention. which i obviously believe in. thank you for elucidating the obvious.

>> No.3422109

how can you believe in gravity when it's just a theory (a gauss)?

>> No.3422111

>>3422093
you motherfuckers make me google and wiki so much bullshit....brb

>> No.3422112

If rock comes from lava, why is there still lava?
Checkmate Geologists

>> No.3422113

>>3422098
>why yes, yes it does. that cripple crapping in his pants said that the universe probably created itself out of nothing due to gravity
Not even close, but nice job further highlighting your ignorance.

>> No.3422129

>>3422112
i lol'd

>> No.3422136

>>3422093
tetrapod anatomy evolved while our ancestors lived exclusively underwater — and it evolved for life underwater. The first vertebrate that walked onto land didn't crawl on fins; it had evolved well-tuned legs millions of years beforehand. (Zimmer 1995:120)

Acanthostega's arms could not support it very well on land, but were functional in water, allowing the creature to pull itself along the bottom of plant-rich coastal lagoons, and enabling it to ambush prey better than normal fish, which must move their fins to stay afloat, kicking up detectable waves. Additionally, despite being a tetrapod, Acanthostega breathed like a fish and had a hearing system more similar to that of fish than to that of landgoing creatures.

i should make you google your own stuff. another fish that used fins for moving around in the water. mind. blown.

>> No.3422148

>>3422113
are you mental?

"The universe began with the Big Bang, which simply followed the inevitable law of physics," Hawking writes. “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.The universe didn't need a God to begin; it was quite capable of launching its existence on its own," says reknowned physicist Stephen Hawking Hawking explains in his new book, The Grand Design.

>> No.3422152

>>3422136

man, you sure dont know a shit about biology.

>> No.3422161

>>3422136
He posted it to show the evolution of limbs. The second link is the one that walked on land.

>> No.3422163

>>3422093
Since the pelvic girdle is not preserved, there is no direct evidence in Ambulocetus for a connection between the hind limbs and the axial skeleton. This hinders interpretations of locomotion in this animal, since many of the muscles that support and move the hindlimb originate on the pelvis.7

7.J.G.M. Thewissen, S.T. Hussain, and M. Arif, Fossil Evidence for the Origin of Aquatic Locomotion in Archeocete Whales, Science 263(5144):210–212, 14 January 1994. Perspective by A. Berta, What is a Whale?, same issue, p. 180–181. Return to text

>> No.3422170

>>3422152
and the quote above demonstrates that? you know that was a pulled quote, yes? about a fish that used its fins to navigate in the water?

just like the coalanth?

>> No.3422179

>>3422161
yeah, googled that one too. same deal. no evidence, just an "artist's rendition" of what the "missing link" must have been like.

post below yours demonstrates how it's tough to walk without a pelvic girdle.

>> No.3422198
File: 59 KB, 800x600, fossil.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3422198

>>3422179
>no evidence, just an "artist's rendition"
Auguring from ignorance again?

>> No.3422201

>>3422198
no, facts. that's made out of cement.

A major characteristic of whales is the horizontal tail flukes. Involvement of the tail in swimming requires strong caudal vertebrae with large processes for muscle attachment. Thewissen et al. show one ‘caudal’ vertebra which has almost no processes for muscle attachment. Furthermore, this one caudal vertebra was not even found with the rest of the skeleton, being ‘referred material’, found 5 metres above. In other words, the whole of the lumbar, pelvic and caudal parts of Ambulocetus were ‘constructed’ from just one lumbar vertebra, one femur, a small piece of tibia (no fibula, no pelvis), a small piece of the ball of the ankle joint and a few foot and toe bones. And yet a detailed description is given of how the animal moved in water and on land! The robust femur and presence of a hoof suggest that Ambulocetus was a land-dwelling creature.

>> No.3422205
File: 53 KB, 533x700, adam-and-eve-12.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3422205

Here is an "artist's rendition" of what Adam and Eve may have looked like. Note the belly buttons.

>> No.3422208

>>3422198
oooh, 80%. scary high for a dinosaur. whoops, a whale.

Original Material: 80%

>> No.3422218

>>3422205
hence the non-reliance on "artist's renditions"

lol

>> No.3422236

Wow as soon as a non-troll creationist comes in all the sudden /sci/ is stumped. Lol

>> No.3422247

i don't blame you kids for believing in evolution; you've only been spoon-fed it your entire government school run lives, and taught to immediately dismiss any evidence to the contrary.

look at all the evidence. the evidence presented in this thread took 5 minutes to refute. no, it's not a walking whale, it's a dinosaur. no, that fish didn't walk on its fins, it used them to hunt prey in the water. no, man and ape do not share a common ancestor, as there is no common ancestor, only the thought that there should be, if evolution is right.

it is not right. you have to have faith in it. it begs for your faith. you have to believe that the universe spontaneously generated itself somehow, or by gravity, and you have to believe you are the product of random chance.

so your life is meaningless, in that it only has the meaning you ascribe to it.

no loving God. no angels. no devil. no heaven. no hell. just a short, brief, painful life and then a dirt nap.

the universe does not operate like that, and no amount of belief in evolution will ever change God.

>> No.3422278

Wow, /sci/ got completely owned by a creationist.
Legendary thread

>> No.3422293

>>3422278
implying the best minds of /sci/ would waste time arguing with a creationist.

evolutionary biologist here, I didn't read this thread, and I don't plan on it.

>> No.3422300

>>3422293
thank you for your contribution

>> No.3422301

>>3422293
You should, he refuted ALL the so called evidence for evolution.
Scared he might prove you wrong?