EMILO2STAY: these are pure lies , there is nothing like genes that cuz humans to grow fur have been shut off. As long as evolution is concerned everything continues to evolve. If evolution is true the native of the amazon should have developed furs and foot-like arms cuz of the need to adapt to their environs.
cats, dogs, cows share much gene with humans why does the embryo not mimic these animals.
What u claimed as “gill slits” like those of a fish are actually your throatpouches. The embryo never has gills and they are never slits.They develop into important human organs like the ear canals, thymus, and parathyroid glands.

cat, dog and cow embryos look the same. All VERTEBRATE embryos look pretty much the same as stated before. Google it. By the way you share about 50% of your genes with the banana too.

"there is nothing like genes that cuz humans to grow fur have been shut off" what? As for the rest of your claims: prove it. Bring on the genetic and anatomical studies that support your claims. You can't falsify scientific results by calling them lies. So bring forth the research that proves it. Also explain the alternative genetic mechanism for humans with fur, tails and supernumerary nip-ples.

While you're at it also have a look at biodiversity in the Amazon rainforest and explain why manatees, piranhas, snakes, birds, frogs and insects in the Amazon "failed" to evolve "furs and foot-like arms cuz of the need to adapt to their environs". You really don't understand it, or are you trolling us?

Liekiller:

Then correct me. Where does it say in the bible that other females were created?

.

In the bible only two humans were created - Adam and Eve. Both of them gave birth to both Sons and daughters - Genesis 5:4.

It is very wrong to think Adam only gave birth to 3 sons just because only their names were mentioned.

RikoduoSennin: .

In the bible only two humans were created - Adam and Eve. Both of them gave birth to both Sons and daughters - Genesis 5:4.

It is very wrong to think Adam only gave birth to 3 sons just because only their names were mentioned.

I'm fine with that. So he had daughters too. It just doesn't change the fact that they would have been inbreeding though, albeit possibly with their sisters instead of the mother.

Nawa 4 una o, u guys are taking paracetamol for a dead man's headache, charles darwin dat brot the evolution theory who neva believed that there was God accepted God before he died, so watz d problem with d people supporting evolution? Na una create the theory ni?

imagine after all these genes,evolution,proofs you now die now find yourself inside FIRE?are you 100% sure He doesn't exist?

Dux01: imagine after all these genes,evolution,proofs you now die now find yourself inside FIRE?are you 100% sure He doesn't exist?

apparently you didn't read a lot here. Else you would have noticed that the theory of evolution does not reject any god. It has nothing to do with any of it. it's biology.

Liekiller:

I'm fine with that. So he had daughters too. It just doesn't change the fact that they would have been inbreeding though, albeit possibly with their sisters instead of the mother.

Yes, you are right. Inbreeding between brother and sister until population become plenty. Abraham married his step sister and Isaac married his cousin. That kind of thing.

RikoduoSennin:

Yes, you are right. Inbreeding between brother and sister until population become plenty. Abraham married his step sister and Isaac married his cousin. That kind of thing.

Thanks for the confirmation.

prettyboi1989: Nawa 4 una o, u guys are taking paracetamol for a dead man's headache, charles darwin dat brot the evolution theory who neva believed that there was God accepted God before he died, so watz d problem with d people supporting evolution? Na una create the theory ni?

Don't tell me the creationist deathbed story fooled you too!......go and get your "facts" checked!

[url] http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/darwin.htm#.VBJ-gkgXO1s [/url]

Even say for the sake of argument he did convert to christianity....does that change the validity of his theory,no...

If his theory is demonstrate-ably true then whatever his background or religion is doesn't matter....

Or using your analogy should we all believe in alchemy because newton did?

EMILO2STAY: these are pure lies , there is nothing like genes that cuz humans to grow fur have been shut off. As long as evolution is concerned everything continues to evolve. If evolution is true the native of the amazon should have developed furs and foot-like arms cuz of the need to adapt to their environs.
cats, dogs, cows share much gene with humans why does the embryo not mimic these animals.
What u claimed as “gill slits” like those of a fish are actually your throatpouches. The embryo never has gills and they are never slits.They develop into important human organs like the ear canals, thymus, and parathyroid glands.

and how long have this people been livin in the amazon away from other human populations?
is it up to 10thousand years? it even takes longer than that for a specie to completely evolve into something else.


wat biological stuidies is there to prove ur claims in the bold?

prettyboi1989: Nawa 4 una o, u guys are taking paracetamol for a dead man's headache, charles darwin dat brot the evolution theory who neva believed that there was God accepted God before he died, so watz d problem with d people supporting evolution? Na una create the theory ni?

more dumb christians...whats my business with charles darwin's personal life? belief in a creator God doesnt hinder ur subscription to the evolution theory.

u dumb christians only shut ur brains to any knowledge outside ur church

btw there is no prove to charles darwin accepting any god much less ur bible god in his adult years

Liekiller:

because that's how long evolution on the larger scale has always taken

baseless assupmtion and ridiculous answer indeed, humans dont live that long yet you know it takes a hundred million years u've not witnessed to evolve completely.

davien: Sorry to burst your bubble...but that's still in-breeding...and harmful mutations are highly likely from such....why is because variance cannot occur and since haploids aren't even perfect copies of parents' in the first place...basic functional activities of the cell are from the genes are either missing or develop in the wrong way....i.e four eyes,no head etc...

Yes: however, this was not a problem. Inbreeding is a problem when children are born with identically defective genes for some function or control from both their mother and their father. When the mother andfather are closely related, they will a have many of the same genetic aberrations, and this increases the chances of a significant number of mutations. In the original creation, therewere no genetic aberrations, so there was no practical problem to inbreeding. Only over time are genetic errors are introduced(around 40 mutations per generation). To avoid these mutations leading to death and disability, it is not sufficient to avoid sharing a parent with your spouse: it is wise not to marry anyone where the family link can be demonstrated. You can also tell me how the first homo sapien got his wife.

prettyboi1989: Nawa 4 una o, u guys are taking paracetamol for a dead man's headache, charles darwin dat brot the evolution theory who neva believed that there was God accepted God before he died, so watz d problem with d people supporting evolution? Na una create the theory ni?

for the record, darwin was a very shy person,though religious at first. when he started his book, he supposed to published it 15 yrs earlier but he was still looking for evidence trying to pass his message accross, struggling. When he knew he started losing faith, he was threatened by his religious wife and doesnt want to accept the term atheism so he told his friend T.X Huxley to coined the word agnostic for him. I felt so much for the guy to lived at that age with his work and belief. So many people still do make the mistakes with the likes of einstein and newton too, its like they dont get the fact, peoples way of expressing their beliefs 100 years ago is way different from now, because now, nobody would ever kill you because of apostasy or heresy, we now have freedom, thats how the zeitegist goes.

EMILO2STAY: baseless assupmtion and ridiculous answer indeed, humans dont live that long yet you know it takes a hundred million years u've not witnessed to evolve completely.

It's the only true answer, sorry if you dislike it. I'm not going to waste more time explaining the evidence that makes this NOT to be a ridiculous assumption. It's all out there for those willing and able to read (and understand what they read).

davien: lol.....wait did i just read this right....lizard speciate to an aligator
First off...developing entirely new organs didn't raise a flag for you that the lizard specie just became something different from its predecessors
wow!...this is a whole new level of denial...
And the development of new organs isn't the end of evolution on those lizard specie...if you would have actually read any of liekiller' propositions you would have understood that such a change that is beneficial would be enforced through several generations if permitted by natural conditions i.e the island....
Please again explain to me why you keep thinking it has to become something already existing?....
oh and point of correction....populations of an organism evolve,not single organisms...

explain how developing a new organ stops it from been a lizard, and why should developing new organs raise a flag when The examples that you and other evolutionists so proudly tout are examples of adaptation, there is no CONVINCING evidence for ANY transitional species anywhere not even in the Fossil record. In other words, evolution on a macro level is Not observed in science. It is however, still a theory often taught as fact. The coelacanth a supposedly 350million year old fish has not changed into somthing else but still remains a fish, this practicaly debunks evolution theory.

Liekiller:


Your example with the Amazon tribes is not applicable. Homo sapiens have only been around for about 200'000 years. Even IF a certain sub-population had been isolated completely during all this time it would not be nearly enough time for them to evolve into a new species.

Eve case: ok. so we have Eve and her daughters then. That means they must have inbred with their sisters if it wasn't with Eve. In the next generation their cousins. I can tell you this tribe wouldn't have survived more than a few generations....

more than 500 yrs of living in the bush should have produced some speciation traits in these people if evolution is true. The sentineles people of andaman island india have been isolated from civilzation for about 60,000 years but still show no signs of evolution.

as for the eve matter, we have the europeans, chineess. whom most of them are products of interbreeding living among us today. So ur statement is not true.

Liekiller:

cat, dog and cow embryos look the same. All VERTEBRATE embryos look pretty much the same as stated before. Google it. By the way you share about 50% of your genes with the banana too.

"there is nothing like genes that cuz humans to grow fur have been shut off" what? As for the rest of your claims: prove it. Bring on the genetic and anatomical studies that support your claims. You can't falsify scientific results by calling them lies. So bring forth the research that proves it. Also explain the alternative genetic mechanism for humans with fur, tails and supernumerary nip-ples.

While you're at it also have a look at biodiversity in the Amazon rainforest and explain why manatees, piranhas, snakes, birds, frogs and insects in the Amazon "failed" to evolve "furs and foot-like arms cuz of the need to adapt to their environs". You really don't understand it, or are you trolling us?

The so-called gill slits of a human embryo have nothing to do with gills,and the human embryo does not passthrough a fish stage or any other evolutionary stage. The development of the human embryo reveals steady progress toward a fully functional human body. Never in the course of development does a human embryo absorb oxygen from water as fish do with gills.(The human embryo is fully supplied with oxygen through the umbilical cord.) In fact, these “gill slits” are not even slits. Actually, they are nothing more than folds in the region of the tiny embryo’s throat.

Am entering this thread late because i couldnt bring myself to respond to a a post that begins to lay faulty premises from the first paragraph. Evolution is not about the Origin of life! If you want to counter a theory, it behoves you to at least know the basic submissions of the subject. I suggest you go back to read about the foundations of the The theory of Evolution; Wallace, Lamarck , & Darwins On the origin of SPECIES ( not on the origin of life).

Then we shall begin to talk. Anyway, any rational mind knows that theory has more credibility than your bible.Fact!

EMILO2STAY: more than 500 yrs of living in the bush should have produced some speciation traits in these people if evolution is true. The sentineles people of andaman island india have been isolated from civilzation for about 60,000 years but still show no signs of evolution.

as for the eve matter, we have the europeans, chineess. whom most of them are products of interbreeding living among us today. So ur statement is not true.

if you dont know anything about evolution, its best for us if you stop arguing. (Argumentum ad ignorantium)

Peterken05: if you dont know anything about evolution, its best for us if you stop arguing. (Argumentum ad ignorantium)

there is nothing to know about evolution but baseless unconfirmed assumptions.

Oduduwaboy: Am entering this thread late because i couldnt bring myself to respond to a a post that begins to lay faulty premises from the first paragraph. Evolution is not about the Origin of life! If you want to counter a theory, it behoves you to at least know the basic submissions of the subject. I suggest you go back to read about the foundations of the The theory of Evolution; Wallace, Lamarck , & Darwins On the origin of SPECIES ( not on the origin of life).

Then we shall begin to talk. Anyway, any rational mind knows that theory has more credibility than your bible.Fact!

seconded

EMILO2STAY: there is nothing to know about evolution but baseless unconfirmed assumptions.

you call it baseless unconfirmed assumption, what would you call your bible? The world is created in six days, is it a baseless unconfirmed assumption/dogma? The earth is 6,000 years old, is it a baseless unconfirmed assumption? The earth is the center of the universe, is it a baseless unconfirmed assumption/dogma? God created adam and eve from sand, is it a basless unconfirmed assumption/dogma? You see what you people fail to know is that you cant reconcile faith with reason, dogma with evidence, i could mention a lot of questions we once had a biblical answer and now we have a scientific answer, why i dont think you can produce one question we once had a scientific answer and now its biblical answer, can you? You can fill your god in science gaps(myseries we havent tackled, questions science are yet to answer), because thats where it fits, but lemme tell you science will tackle the mysteries/questions one by one and lets see if you gonna end up been religious at the end of the day.

Peterken05: you call it baseless unconfirmed assumption, what would you call your bible? The world is created in six days, is it a baseless unconfirmed assumption/dogma? The earth is 6,000 years old, is it a baseless unconfirmed assumption? The earth is the center of the universe, is it a baseless unconfirmed assumption/dogma? God created adam and eve from sand, is it a basless unconfirmed assumption/dogma? You see what you people fail to know is that you cant reconcile faith with reason, dogma with evidence, i could mention a lot of questions we once had a biblical answer and now we have a scientific answer, why i dont think you can produce one question we once had a scientific answer and now its biblical answer, can you? You can fill your god in science gaps(myseries we havent tackled, questions science are yet to answer), because thats where it fits, but lemme tell me science will tackle the mysteries/questions one by one and lets see if you gonna end up being religious at the end of the day.

realy! ok, explain to me using science how possible a human hand can stick to the ground using just few grains of sand.

EMILO2STAY: realy! ok, explain to me using science how possible a human hand can stick to the ground using just few grains of sand.

i dont understand, you want to stick human hand to the sand? Why? What does that science has to do with that? Whats the purpose? I dont get you

Peterken05: i dont understand, you want to stick human hand to the sand? Why? What does that science has to do with that? Whats the purpose? I dont get you

i thought science has got answer for every thing. It has happend before my very eyes.

EMILO2STAY: i thought science has got answer for every thing. It has happend before my very eyes.

you sound very illogical, when did i say science got answer to everything? science hasnt said that and i havent heard any scientist that did, its only your god that claims to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent that he can solve evrything. He cant even solve any of the problem science is tackling right now or has tackled in the past, all he can do is to promise people hell for not believing in him. pls dont let us digress from the main purpose of this thread.

Peterken05: you sound very illogical, when did i say science got answer to everything? science hasnt said that and i havent heard any scientist that did, its only your god that claims to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent that he can solve evrything. He cant even solve any of the problem science is tackling right now or has tackled in the past, all he can do is to promise people hell for not believing in him. pls dont let us digress from the main purpose of this thread.

mtchwww! Na u sabi.

EMILO2STAY: more than 500 yrs of living in the bush should have produced some speciation traits in these people if evolution is true. The sentineles people of andaman island india have been isolated from civilzation for about 60,000 years but still show no signs of evolution.

as for the eve matter, we have the europeans, chineess. whom most of them are products of interbreeding living among us today. So ur statement is not true.

But you close your eyes to the huge variations within homo sapiens. Africans, Chinese (and other southeast Asians), Caucasians, South Americans, Eskimos etc have varying physical features and skin colours. To evolutionists, that's a proof of evolution otherwise all humans would be alike.

@emilo2stay

You have not made a real argument against evolution, but I agree with you that evolution conflicts with the Bible.

EMILO2STAY: mtchwww! Na u sabi.

...grow up bro, you are a logical being, behave logical and rational, its going to help you.

EMILO2STAY: explain how developing a new organ stops it from been a lizard, and why should developing new organs raise a flag when The examples that you and other evolutionists so proudly tout are examples of adaptation, there is no CONVINCING evidence for ANY transitional species anywhere not even in the Fossil record. In other words, evolution on a macro level is Not observed in science. It is however, still a theory often taught as fact. The coelacanth a supposedly 350million year old fish has not changed into somthing else but still remains a fish, this practicaly debunks evolution theory.

brah,adaptations is still under evolution....the most 'fit' organisms...i.e those that can adapt will pass those favourable traits to the next generation....and i honestly dunno why you equivocate philosophical 'theory' with the scientific one....
Scientific theories are made of facts....
As for your 'no convincing evidence'....first define what you understand a transitional species is.....
And as for the 'organ doesn't stop it from being a lizard' i agree with you...because all organisms that evolve are modified versions of what they evolved from....just because we speciated from ape-like creatures doesn't stop us from being classified as homonids along with other 'apes'...creatures that evolve don't become outcasts....if you are expecting monstrous chimera's from already complex beings then you will be in for a disappointment...