"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
[with his usual ignorance in full display]
>And "scientists" have not a shred of evidence that those species which
>became extinct weren't created at exactly the same time as ALL of the
>species which are still in existence were created.
We have no evidence that they were "created" at all.
We have more evidence compatible with them having appeared at
different times than evidence suggesting that they appeared at the
same time.
>Just because biologists are able to combine species and create a "new" life
>form [often misnamed "species"] is no reason to believe that ANY modern
>species wasn't orginally created in exactly its current form.
The fact that we have observed species that exist now that did not
exist a few decades ago (and which were not "combined" by biologists)
proves you wrong.
>The sheer speculation that Neanderthal was an ancestor to humanoids was
>DISPROVEN by the DNA evidence which showed that this "common ancestor" would
>have had to have lived a million years ago.
You are confusing 2 or 3 different things here. Neanderthal has not
been considered likely to be a human ancestor for years. Perhaps a
million years ago some other species was a common ancestor.
>because not one single fossil exists as evidence that Neanderthal
>"speciated" into humanoids.
Correct, for once. Since the DNA shows otherwise, such fossil
evidence would present a problem.
>In order for "speciation" to take place, the fossils of the intermediate
>species would have been a thousand or a billion times more prevalent than
>the original Neanderthal fossils
No.
In fact the prevalence of fossils has much more to do with the factors
that lead to fossilization and preservation of fossils, than to the
existence of the species that are fossilized.
And since you have no clue as to what an "intermediate species" might
be, or when it would be required, that portion of your statement is
garbage.
>> Of course he didn't. What he did do was to 1) provide for the
>> first time a plausible mechanism which moved evolution from
>> the realm of speculation to the purview of science, and 2)
>> provide great thundering encyclopaedic piles of evidence
>> and examples. But I sure you, as "a Biologists", already
>> knew this.
>>They already knew that the South American rhea can resembled the African
>ostrich, but no biologist was STUPID enough to claim that they both
>"evolved" from a "common ancestor".
The concept of evolution predated Darwin.
>From this STUPID assessment, Darwinists
>and "evolutionists" make the giant leap that man evolved from monkeys!
No.
>NOT UNTIL YOU PRODUCE ONE COMMON ANCESTOR TO THE OSTRICH AND RHEA CAN YOU
>CLAIM THAT THIS IS A 'THEORY'!
Dinosaurs.
lojbab
