Did primordial ooze continue to be zapped into life after the initial zap, or was it all zapped that first time, or did some of the primordial ooze never get zapped into life?
syngameons or syngapoop?
- Thread starter IceAgeCivilizations
- Start date
As opposed to the 'giant-magical-hand-from-the-sky' thesis?
So Darwinian evolution is a faith, I agree.
You sir, are a complete idiot.
You're a total idiot.
This zap you mention has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. So WTF are you going on about?
Please stick to the religion forum if you want to discuss the creation myths and the Noah's ark fairytale. NOAH'S ARK!! FUCK ME!!!
The present groups that IAC calls syngama-whatevers did not always exist. Why is that? There was a time, for instance, when there were no flowering plants whatsoever.
What is that attempt at a point goat?
Of course, he is not ruling out the observable genetic variation within syngameons of animals, often manifesting as separate "species," but only because species is obviously a meaningless term.
By your reasoning we are the same syngameon as chimpanzees.
Here's why, the genetic difference separating us from chimps is 1.6%. This is less than that separating two such closely related bird species as the North American red-eyed vireo and the white-eyed vireos (2.9%).
I agree, we are a third kind of chimpanzee. They are more closely related to humans (1.6% difference) than they are to gorillas (2.3% difference, using the DNA hybridization technique).
Here's why, the genetic difference separating us from chimps is 1.6%. This is less than that separating two such closely related bird species as the North American red-eyed vireo and the white-eyed vireos (2.9%).
I agree, we are a third kind of chimpanzee. They are more closely related to humans (1.6% difference) than they are to gorillas (2.3% difference, using the DNA hybridization technique).
Monkeys are hardly of the human syngameon, ever mated a monkey with a human? Wouldn't work.
I didn't mention monkeys. Chimps aren't monkeys.
What about addressing my point, which is that creatures you lump together as one syngemathingy can't mate either, like many species of bird, which are separated by a greater percentage of DNA than us and chimps.
What about addressing my point, which is that creatures you lump together as one syngemathingy can't mate either, like many species of bird, which are separated by a greater percentage of DNA than us and chimps.
What about birds of paradise? Closely related, yet they don't mate at all between each other. The females are extremely picky with whom they mate.
The definition of species are distinct creatures that do breed with each other in their natural environment, not creatures that CAN breed with each other when forced to do so.
Animal fossils are found all the time which are not where they're supposed to be, according to Darwinian dogma, just another well kept secret about that "good" science.
Last edited:
Hey, the posts above mine about about "out of place" fossils are gone, so see, talking about such things is grounds for censorship, that's how seriously damaging these out of place fossils are to the Darwinian scheme.
More problems for the Dawinists, "out of place" fossils are discovered all the time, but it's a well kept secret, for obvious reasons.
Mod statement: post moved to pseudoscience...again.
Mod statement: post moved to pseudoscience...again.
Apology, the posts are on the evolution thread, I forgot.
A hagfish is an ugly fish, and a primitive hagfish is a fantastically ugly fish?
"Large Mammals Once Dined on Dinosaurs," what does that do to the Darwinian scheme?
Moved: if you can't be bothered to look up hagfish in wikipedia or an encyclopedia or to admit you don't know you can just troll somewhere else.
"Large Mammals Once Dined on Dinosaurs," what does that do to the Darwinian scheme?
Moved: if you can't be bothered to look up hagfish in wikipedia or an encyclopedia or to admit you don't know you can just troll somewhere else.
Last edited by a moderator: