Reverse Evolution

"johac" <jhachmann.DeleteThis@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-5CBC1A.23332606112006@news.giganews.com...
> In article <c6duk2tcff40ttc8bmgvu9b978e4kqdmbs.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
> Jd <ZionsFire.DeleteThis@att.net> wrote:
>
>> You have heard how an amoeba evolved into a critter which crawled up
>> out of the primorial slime and eventually became an ape, which
>> eventually became a human
>
> If you are going to post on this topic, shouldn't you learn something
> about evolution first?
> --
> John Hachmann aa #1782
>
> "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit
> atrocities"
> -Voltaire
>
> Contact - Throw a .net over the .com

What, and ruin his perfect record?

James Powell
 >> Stay informed about: Reverse Evolution 

"Jd" <ZionsFire.TakeThisOut@att.net> wrote in message
news:oq59l2t975cs4naofmtm6q65gtkgt8q35p@4ax.com...
> johac wrote:
>
>>In article <c6duk2tcff40ttc8bmgvu9b978e4kqdmbs.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>,
>> Jd <ZionsFire.TakeThisOut@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> You have heard how an amoeba evolved into a critter which crawled up
>>> out of the primorial slime and eventually became an ape, which
>>> eventually became a human
>>
>>If you are going to post on this topic, shouldn't you learn something
>>about evolution first?
>
> It was a stroke of genius and that is why you misunderstood.
>
> I condensed 2 years of high school + 4 years of college Biology into 1
> sentence which perfectly explained ToE.
>

How can you condense something you do not have?

> In fact, that 1 sentence was so impressive that it bears re-posting:
>
> "You have heard how an amoeba evolved into a critter which crawled up
> out of the primorial slime and eventually became an ape, which
> eventually became a human.." - Jd

"I am a complete moron." - Jd

Why do you continue to embarrass yourself? Do you think anyone really takes
you seriously?

James Powell
 >> Stay informed about: Reverse Evolution 

Jd <ZionsFire.DeleteThis@att.net> wrote in
news:c639l29gacl7kt21gn7jlps89n03m0nfhj@4ax.com:

> Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th wrote:
>
>>Jd <ZionsFire.DeleteThis@att.net> wrote in
>>news:c6duk2tcff40ttc8bmgvu9b978e4kqdmbs@4ax.com:
>>
>>> You have heard how an amoeba evolved into a critter which crawled up
>>> out of the primorial slime and eventually became an ape, which
>>> eventually became a human.... but now here is proof that a "common
>>> ancestor" had descendants which crawled back into the ocean and
>>> reversed, or at least hindered the evolutionary process:
>>
>>Your understanding of evolution is flawed. Evolution is change, not
>>progress. The change is constrained by the environment. Species evolve
>>to survive in their environment. There is actually a case of human
>>somatic cells evolving into a single celled protist. Of course it is a
>>rather artificial case but the cell lines derived from the cancer cells
>>of a certain patient (Henrietta Lacks) who died in the 1950's are still
>>thriving. It hasn't been officially accepted but some regard these cells
>>as a new species "Helacyton gartleri".
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa
>>
>>>
>>> "Fossil remains show dolphins and whales were four-footed land animals
>>> about 50 million years ago and share the same common ancestor as
>>> hippos and deer. Scientists believe they later transitioned to an
>>> aquatic lifestyle and their hind limbs disappeared."
>>
>>http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
>>
>>>
>>> http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pub&dt=061106&cat=science&st=sc
>>> ie nced8l756601&src=ap
>>>
>>> Think about it. Had dolphins not gone back into the sea they just
>>> might've invented the internet millions of years before Al Gore did,
>>> and you just might be able to drive your SUV without having to worry
>>> about "global warming" by now.
>>
>>Why would you think that. None of the cetacean's close terrestrial
>>relatives evolved in the direction of being able to invent technology.
>>
>>Klazmon.
>
> Good point. But actually the whole argument is needless. The guy
> probably found 3 or 4 bones and then came up with that whole theory
> about dolphins..... just as all bone worshippers do.
>
> "The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there
> are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that
> all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be
> placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!"—*Science Digest
> 90, May 1982, p. 44.

This is a canard. In the twenty four years since this was written, hundreds
of hominid remains have been found.

>
> Jd
>
> Ramapithecus was widely recognized as a direct ancestor of humans. It
> is now established that he was merely an extinct type of orangutan.

Utter nonsense, these are far more closely related to the human/chimp
lineage that Orangutan.


>
> Piltdown man was hyped as the missing link in publications for over 40
> years. He was a fraud based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's
> jaw.

A fraud exposed by evolutionary scientists. This particular "fossil" was
puzzling for a long time as it was an outlier which didn't fit in with
anything else. Two suspicious scientists were able to gain access to the
fossil at the British musuem and their examination exposed it as a fraud.


>
> Nebraska man was a fraud based on a single tooth of a rare type of
> pig.

Not a fraud of any kind. It was an error misclassifying a tooth. It has
nothing to do with hominid evolution in any case.

>
> Java man was based on sketchy evidence of a femur, skull cap and three
> teeth found within a wide area over a one year period. It turns out
> the bones were found in an area of human remains, and now the femur is
> considered human and the skull cap from a large ape.

Wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java.html



>
> Neandertal man was traditionally depicted as a stooped ape-man. It is
> now accepted that the alleged posture was due to disease and that
> Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.

Nonsense. There are hundreds of Neanderthal fossils known. The argument you
give above is based on one individual, the others do not have that feature.
They are clearly different to humans. We even have some DNA samples of them
to prove it.


>
> Homo Erectus has been found to have lived side by side with humans,
> and did not go extict 200,000 years ago which means he could not be a
> "link" either.

This is wrong. Species often split into different lineages. A new lineage
arising does not cause the other to die out.



>
> Lucy - "The evidence . . makes it overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was
> no more than a variety of pigmy chimpanzee, and walked the same way
> (awkwardly upright on occasions, but mostly quadrupedal). The
> ‘evidence’ for the alleged transformation from ape to man is extremely
> unconvincing."—A.W. Mehlert, news note, Creation Research Society
> Quarterly, December 1985, p. 145


Only according to liars.

The real information.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#afarensis
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#afarensis
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html#


>
> "Sunset Crater, an Arizona Volcano, is known from tree-ring dating to
> be about 1000 years old. But potassium-argon put it at over 200,000
> years [*G.B. Dalrymple, ‘40 Ar/36 Ar Analyses of Historical Lava
> Flows,’ Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6, 1969, pp. 47-55].

Fraudulant cretinist attempt to have igneous samples dated with unmelted
xenoliths.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html



>
> "For the volcanic island of Rangitoto in New Zealand, potassium-argon
> dated the lava flows as 145,000 to 465,000 years old, but the journal
> of the Geochemical Society noted that ‘the radiocarbon, geological and
> botanical evidence unequivocally shows that it was active and was
> probably built during the last 1000 years.’ In fact, wood buried
> underneath its lava has been carbon-dated as less than 350 years old
> [*Ian McDougall, *H.A. Polach, and *J.J. Stipp, "Excess Radiogenic
> Argon in Young Subaerial Basalts from Auckland Volcanic Field, New
> Zealand," Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, December 1969, pp. 1485,
> 1499].

Ditto.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html

>
> "Even the [1980] lava dome of Mount St. Helens has been
> radiometrically dated at 2.8 million years [H.M Morris, Radiometric
> Dating," Back to Genesis, 1997]."—James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard
> (1999), p. 146.

Ditto.


> Homo "Hobbit" (LB1): In 2004, scientists announced their original,
> sensational discovery of a delicate skull and partial skeleton of a
> female, nicknamed "Hobbit" and believed to be 18,000 years old. The
> female skeleton, known as LB1 - was labeled a new species within the
> genus Homo I.e. Homo floresiensis. Members of the species were said
> to be just 1 meter tall with a brain no bigger than a grapefruit.
>
> "Hobbit" hoax revealed:

Not a hoax of any sort. The exact classification is still under debate by
scientists.

Klazmon.
 >> Stay informed about: Reverse Evolution 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Reverse Evolution 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Reverse Evolution 

Jd <ZionsFire.DeleteThis@att.net> wrote:
>>>>http://animalpicturesarchive.com/ArchOLD-4/1126603355.jpg
>>>>
>>>>Now why couldn't such coloration and behavior have evolved?
>>>
>>>Because it is impossible which proves my point.
>>
>>Since it happened, it obviously is not "impossible".
>
>Impossible for "evolution" which takes millions of years.

It DID take millions of years to evolve that particular capability.

>As I've
>stated, by the time evolution improved the blue eyes on the rear of
>the false-eyed frog to the point where they actually frightened off
>the intruders, the frog would've long since been a meal and the
>evolutionary process would've been halted.

If it were the case that the false eyes are vital for survival, then
all frogs of all species would have them. They don't, but in fact not
all frogs without false eyes become predator-food prior to
reproduction.

>Obviously, a frog which can turn around 180 degrees, create blue eyes
>on it's on ass (which it can't see),

It doesn't "create blue eyes on its own ass". They are already there,
but not visible to the predator.

>all in the matter of one
>second... has not done so using the process of evolution which can
>take millions of years.

They are not using the process of evolution to turn around. They are
using the process of genetically-supported instinct, which is
instantaneous in effect, but the instinct may have evolved over
millions of years.

>It is utterly impossible within the scope of evolution.

Wrong. The frog would likely have first evolved the markings, which
alone would have reduced the predator attacks somewhat. Then over
many generations, the instinct to turn around, and raise its toes
would have evolved (probably each separately).

Actually, turning around probably came first, since the frog has to
turn around in order to hop away from the predator.

>And this is what you and so many others do be indoctrinated into the
>great religious cult of evolution.
>
>For any new onlookers here, I'll re-post a brief description of just
>exactly what this "false-eyed frog" does.....

I gave a picture.

>"The frog will be sitting in the jungle minding its own business, when
>an enemy, such as a snake or rat, will come along."
>
>"Instantly, that frog will jump and turn around, so that its back is
>now facing the intruder. In that same instance, the frog changed its
>colors!"

But it didn't change its colors. It's rear has a different color
pattern than its front, so it is changing the colors that it SHOWS,
not the colors that it has.

Of course some animals actually DO change their coloration (and not
merely their direction) instantaneously in response to stimuli. We
call one such instinct "blushing".

>"Now the enemy sees a big head, nose, mouth, and two black and blues
>eyes! All this looks so real—with even a black pupil with a blue iris
>around it. Yet the frog cannot see any of this, for the very highly
>intelligently designed markings are on its back!"

The frog doesn't need to see it, and there is no reason to believe the
markings are "intelligently designed".

>"The normal sitting position of this frog is head high and back low.
>But when the predator comes, he quickly turns around, so his back
>faces the predator! In addition, the frog puts his head low to the
>ground and his hind parts high. In this position, to the enemy viewing
>him, he appears to be a large rat’s head! In just the right location
>is that face and eyes staring at you!"
>
>"The frog’s hind legs are tucked away together underneath his eyes—and
>they look like a large mouth! As he moves his hind legs, the mouth
>appears to move! The part of the frog’s body that once was a tadpole’s
>snail—now looks like a perfectly formed nose, and it is just at the
>right location!"
>
>http://www.evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c24.htm

lojbab
 >> Stay informed about: Reverse Evolution 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Reverse Evolution 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Reverse Evolution 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Reverse Evolution 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Reverse Evolution 

Jd <ZionsFire.DeleteThis@att.net> wrote in
news:2hjfl25ahi78roc6tr28jmqf1680crt6ta@4ax.com:

> Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th wrote:
>
>>Jd <ZionsFire.DeleteThis@att.net> wrote in
>>news:c639l29gacl7kt21gn7jlps89n03m0nfhj@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jd <ZionsFire.DeleteThis@att.net> wrote in
>>>>news:c6duk2tcff40ttc8bmgvu9b978e4kqdmbs@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> You have heard how an amoeba evolved into a critter which crawled up
>>>>> out of the primorial slime and eventually became an ape, which
>>>>> eventually became a human.... but now here is proof that a "common
>>>>> ancestor" had descendants which crawled back into the ocean and
>>>>> reversed, or at least hindered the evolutionary process:
>>>>
>>>>Your understanding of evolution is flawed. Evolution is change, not
>>>>progress. The change is constrained by the environment. Species evolve
>>>>to survive in their environment. There is actually a case of human
>>>>somatic cells evolving into a single celled protist. Of course it is a
>>>>rather artificial case but the cell lines derived from the cancer
>>>>cells of a certain patient (Henrietta Lacks) who died in the 1950's
>>>>are still thriving. It hasn't been officially accepted but some regard
>>>>these cells as a new species "Helacyton gartleri".
>>>>
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Fossil remains show dolphins and whales were four-footed land
>>>>> animals about 50 million years ago and share the same common
>>>>> ancestor as hippos and deer. Scientists believe they later
>>>>> transitioned to an aquatic lifestyle and their hind limbs
>>>>> disappeared."
>>>>
>>>>http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pub&dt=061106&cat=science&st=
>>>>> sc ie nced8l756601&src=ap
>>>>>
>>>>> Think about it. Had dolphins not gone back into the sea they just
>>>>> might've invented the internet millions of years before Al Gore did,
>>>>> and you just might be able to drive your SUV without having to worry
>>>>> about "global warming" by now.
>>>>
>>>>Why would you think that. None of the cetacean's close terrestrial
>>>>relatives evolved in the direction of being able to invent technology.
>>>>
>>>>Klazmon.
>>>
>>> Good point. But actually the whole argument is needless. The guy
>>> probably found 3 or 4 bones and then came up with that whole theory
>>> about dolphins..... just as all bone worshippers do.
>>>
>>> "The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there
>>> are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that
>>> all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be
>>> placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!"—*Science Digest
>>> 90, May 1982, p. 44.
>>
>>This is a canard. In the twenty four years since this was written,
>>hundreds of hominid remains have been found.
>
> Which wipes out the 20 CENTURIES of Christianity how?

Non sequitur. What wipes out 20 centuries of christianity is the continuous
lies that you fundies spout.

Klazmon.


>
> Jd
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Reverse Evolution 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Reverse Evolution 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Reverse Evolution