Generally we don't carbon date stuff that is millions of years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
Syngameons
- Thread starter NDS
- Start date
Generally we don't carbon date stuff that is millions of years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
The ancestral apes of course.
What did they supposedly look like?
very much like your mother.
Radioactive decay. Unless you think radioactivity has syngameons now.
As for which primate (not necessarily ape), Homo habilis or something similar. Prior to that, something in the Australopithecus genus. Prior to that, probably Ardipithicus.
Anyway, they were probably all on the Ark. Not so? Come on, man.
You said Carbon 14 dating, very ignorant.
Who's to say that Homo Habilis was not a human, and Australopithecus was not an ape?
Who's to say that Homo Habilis was not a human, and Australopithecus was not an ape?
At least GeoffP corrects his errors.
pseudoscience forum.
pseudoscience forum.
Yep. And?
Well, who's to say you are? I've no idea what you look like.
The point is that one looks more like a monkey than another, shortly put.
Oh, IAC: are we degenerating to ad hominem now? Give it a rest.
Well, I leave it to you:
They occur further back in time; then, disappear. Mass suicide? Couldn't take being out of the garden any longer? Evolution and extinction? Your call.
They show greater similarity to monkeys and less to ourselves the further back one goes.
They share less and less % sequence similarity to humans with increasing "simianism".
Now, if you want to demand more evidence, go ahead, but you don't strike me as the kind of person that would have let OJ off. "How much do you need?" might be a good question here. "Would you ever change your opinion?" would be another.
They occur further back in time; then, disappear. Mass suicide? Couldn't take being out of the garden any longer? Evolution and extinction? Your call.
They show greater similarity to monkeys and less to ourselves the further back one goes.
They share less and less % sequence similarity to humans with increasing "simianism".
Now, if you want to demand more evidence, go ahead, but you don't strike me as the kind of person that would have let OJ off. "How much do you need?" might be a good question here. "Would you ever change your opinion?" would be another.
Darwinian change should be noticeable in nature, at least "punctuated equilibrium," but it's not, and for thousands of mutations to happen to be good for a creature as it serendipitously moves into a new ecological niche is beyond the pale, so I guess the jury is still out shall we say.
We are a kind of ape that descended from an unknown kind of ape. The evidence is our physical similarity, specific details about our bodies and skeletons, and DNA.
Why can't you prove that 10 million species evolved from 20,000 "kinds" or "syngameons"?
How did polar bears suddenly sprout webbed feet in a few generations? Punctuated equilibrium?
The bottom line is, as I have proven before, Noah did not have any "hyper mutts" to bring on the ark. They simply were not there. Only in IAC's fantasy world.
How did polar bears suddenly sprout webbed feet in a few generations? Punctuated equilibrium?
The bottom line is, as I have proven before, Noah did not have any "hyper mutts" to bring on the ark. They simply were not there. Only in IAC's fantasy world.
All the so-called species obviously selected from larger respective gene pools, the opposite of Darwinian evolution, so you have that little hurdle.
Who said it necessarily did suddenly? And if it did, through the womb.
They have.
You did.