Ardi? Rotflmao!!!

he could have used a bra

My own question here to all ya athiests is this, how does the so-called researchers truely know that those fossils found where the skeletons of our ancestors and not the ancestors of monkeys and gorillas. May God help me, researches in futility!

The same way they can figure out how to make planes fly

All of you baseless evolution propagandists why has other chimps not evolved till date. Why do human begot human and not chimps turning to human. Let me ask whoever cares to listen. Is it only one chimp that evolved to human or a generation of chimps? why are you now showing us one monster as 'our ancestor'? If its neither human nor chimps then there might be an animal that has gone into extinction which the so called scientists can't explain maybe its their ancestor and not mine. Instead of the scientists to be looking for the solution their so called discoveries is causing the world. Wars every where, natural disasters (erosions, tsunamis, earthquakes etc), economic depression, and climate change.

noble c.:

All of you baseless evolution propagandists why has other chimps not evolved till date. Why do human begot human and not chimps turning to human. Let me ask whoever cares to listen. Is it only one chimp that evolved to human or a generation of chimps? why are you now showing us one monster as 'our ancestor'? If its neither human nor chimps then there might be an animal that has gone into extinction which the so called scientists can't explain maybe its their ancestor and not mine. Instead of the scientists to be looking for the solution their so called discoveries is causing the world. Wars every where, natural disasters (erosions, tsunamis, earthquakes etc), economic depression, and climate change.

You want them to look for solution to the problems your GOD created abi


Let me sit back and watch these people who cannot even produce pin in their country doubt what people dedicate their lives to.

noble c.:

All of you baseless evolution propagandists why has other chimps not evolved till date. Why do human begot human and not chimps turning to human. Let me ask whoever cares to listen. Is it only one chimp that evolved to human or a generation of chimps? why are you now showing us one monster as 'our ancestor'? If its neither human nor chimps then there might be an animal that has gone into extinction which the so called scientists can't explain maybe its their ancestor and not mine. Instead of the scientists to be looking for the solution their so called discoveries is causing the world. Wars every where, natural disasters (erosions, tsunamis, earthquakes etc), economic depression, and climate change.

that ^^ is ape brain at work. Darwin would love to have u over for brunch.

Why are we not evolving again?

When are they going to discover the husband.

Krayola:

that ^^ is ape brain at work. Darwin would love to have u over for brunch.

Guy you dey vexoooooooooo, you mean that ardi on the picture is a nairaland memeber ?

evolution! A theory in crisis
they found ardi and are all so excited. They think we have forgotten what happened to lucy, piltdown man and nebraska man.

The skull of piltdown man was hailed as one of those ever evasive missing links to human ancesotrs. It sat in the british museum of natural history 50 yrs and over 500 PHD thesis was written about. We saw lots of beautiful diagrams of how these 'ancestors' must have lived even up to details of their likely diet. Finally a shocker came! This was another hoax by evolutionist to strengthen their religion. I was discoverd this skull was a forgery built from remains of an oranguntang and a man. Can u imagine?

The fossil of nebraska man was actually a single 'molar' and an entire story of early human ancestors was built on this similar to piltdown man. Guess what? It was later discoverd to be the tooth of a pig!

There is no doubt that neanderthals. Cromagnon. And the likes were just diff races of humans. This will make more sense to you if you compare the skeletons of a negroid an inuit, a caucasiod and a pgymy from africa to realize that the differences are more stark than those of modern humans and their alleged ancestors.

Recent discoveries of serious ovelaps in time of 'modern humans' and their alleged ancestors is beginning to cause serious headaches for evolutionist.

@seeker
Mmmmh you are quite capable of making sense at times when you step out of the dogma of your religion.

Archeologist desperately trying to justify their research grand!!!

419 Professors.

i am greatly disappointed at the out burst of some of the nairalander , particularly huxley with his emphatic reiteration of Jesus liars. that you do not believe what i believe does not mean you should be sarcastic or insultive. may you "hatist" should take you time out and look around, if you not going to wonder how things work naturally in a mechanistic order if there was actually no one putting time and order to them. come to think of it, why are you so particular with the creationist theory, why not about the diluvialist or the big bang  theory. please stop exhaulting evolution it has severally been proven to be fallible.

The creature was a biped. It wasn't swinging from trees, it was walking about on two legs, according to the paleontologists. It's jaws and teeth are more human than simian. Researchers now conclude humans and apes 'parted long ago' on the evolutionary ladder. I didn't hear anyone saying This is What TThe Theory of Evolution Predicted. What prediction would that be exactly?

Who cares? Sooner or later we'll know our origins for sure and for one side or the other it will be "Silencio!" forever. Just keep an open mind.

prof edet:

i am greatly disappointed at the out burst of some of the nairalander ,  particularly huxley with his emphatic reiteration of Jesus liars. that you do not believe what i believe does not mean you should be sarcastic or insultive. may you "hatist" should take you time out and look around, if you not going to wonder how things work naturally in a mechanistic order if there was actually no one putting time and order to them. come to think of it, why are you so particular with the creationist theory, why not about the diluvialist or the big bang  theory. please stop exhaulting evolution it has severally been proven to be fallible.

Ewooo, i can see you are new here Mr prof, welcome, when it comes to insult, the christians and muslims do it better than atheists.

Did you call this thing human ancestor? I disagree baje.

This can't be my own ancestor, Evolution my ass!!!!!!!

Looks like shes got a bit of a pubic hair issue going on there 

I bet she wasnt shy.

huxley:

The gap in the fossil record does not present a serious challenge to evolution nowadays.  There will always be gaps because only a very very small fraction of animals fossilise, less than 0.05%.  

If you think that this is a real problem, what explains the fact that a great deal of prediction about ancient species are being found daily, yearly all over the world?  The scientists who study these things make specific prediction about which species and where to find them - and lo & below, when they go there and look long and hard enough, they find them.

this is a big lie. Darwin hoped that these missing links would be found to validate his theory. When paleontologists could not find these fossils they claimed the fossils recods were incomplete.
Although  not all creatures that lived are fossilized but geologist have concluded that the records are in fact complete at least for the purpose of creating an evolutionary lineage. To solve the problem of missing fossils a prominent american paleotologists steven gay gould proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrum. Acoding to this theory oorganisms evolve by phyletic evolution and not microevolution (this requires many intermediate fossils) as propsed by darwin. The mechanics is that a fish goes to bed, suffers a huge mutation and wakes up as an amphibian (this analogy is jst for the purpose of explanation).

This initially was welcomed by all scientist as a solution. Further analysis by biologist reveaalsed a seroius flaw. A small mutation is baad enough for an organism but a huge mutation is very distatrous and that the small populations required for this theory to work would lead to inbreeding and spread of disease. This theory has failed and brought down the entire evolution theory with it. Stephen jay unintentionally exposed the flaw in a theory he was trying to save. He had made scientist to honestly admit the fact that fossils records was complete leaving them high and dry with his failed theory.

This is similar to what Goberchev did with communism in russia. In an attempt to fix communism he exposed the flaws that finally collapsed it

the_seeker:

evolution! A theory in crisis
they found ardi and are all so excited. They think we have forgotten what happened to lucy, piltdown man and nebraska man.

The skull of piltdown man was hailed as one of those ever evasive missing links to human ancesotrs. It sat in the british museum of natural history 50 yrs and over 500 PHD thesis was written about. We saw lots of beautiful diagrams of how these 'ancestors' must have lived even up to details of their likely diet. Finally a shocker came! This was another hoax by evolutionist to strengthen their religion. I was discoverd this skull was a forgery built from remains of an oranguntang and a man. Can u imagine?

The fossil of nebraska  man was actually a single  'molar' and an entire story of early human ancestors was built on this similar to piltdown man. Guess what? It was later discoverd to be the tooth of a pig!

There is no doubt that neanderthals. Cromagnon. And the likes were just diff races of humans. This will make more sense to you if you compare the skeletons of a negroid an inuit, a caucasiod and a pgymy from africa to realize that the differences are more stark than those of modern humans and their alleged ancestors.

Recent discoveries of serious ovelaps in time of 'modern humans' and their alleged ancestors is beginning to cause serious headaches for evolutionist.

Cut the bullshit. Nebraska man was a honest mistake,  and lucy was a small-brained ape-like creature that walked on 2 feet. Not sure what the scandal is there. . . .


Piltdown was the only Hoax of all u mentioned, and it was found in 1912 for fukcs sake (This stuff was at its infancy). . . and it was exposed in 1953 by scientists who were themselves evolutionists. Today it would take about 10 mins to have exposed it.  lot of knowledge accumulates, and based on that hoaxes like that are harder to pull off. What about the thousands of fossils of VARIOUS species of animals that show evolution is real? your argument is just one of insecurity. It does pretty much nothing to discredit the theory of evolution. It is like pointing to 5 Nigerian scam artists and using that as "irrefutable" evidence that all Nigerians are crooks.

Evolution does not need proof. . .It just needs to be narrowed down to finer details. Some of these fossils are millions of years old so it is no easy task.

huxley:

You can conceive of anything you want but is it possible.  Is there any evidence that evolution has direction and purpose?  If it is a guided process, why are there so many dead-ends; why so many extinction; why so many bad designs?

Darwin made no such admission.  Theists never actually quote the full paragraphy.  Darwin actually only raise the question, only to provide the answer in the next paragraphy.  It is really intellectual dishonesty when I see people make this point.

If even if it were true that Darwin really doubted the possibility of the evolution of the eye, it does not falsify the theory.  Scientific theories are not like your metaphsysical dogma whose validity is based on the teachings of the progenitor.  Even if Darwin would have rejected Evolution later, it does not mean that evolution is false.

another liar. Darwin did say 'if organs of irreducible complexity can be found to exist, my theory would definately fail'. The eye. kindey are only a few. These organs and a host of others are practicaly useless if a single part is mising. How then could such organs have evolved. Evolution is just sensless fairytales

@ the seeker
If you really seek to learn the truth about the evolution of the eye, take a look here and educate yourself first before asking questions that have already long been answered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

"Since 1802, the evolution of a structure as complex as the projecting eye by natural selection has been said to be difficult to explain.[4] Charles Darwin himself wrote, in his Origin of Species, that the evolution of the eye by natural selection at first glance seemed "absurd in the highest possible degree". However, he went on to explain that despite the difficulty in imagining it, it was perfectly feasible:

, if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.[5]

He suggested a gradation from "an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism" to "a moderately high stage of perfection", giving examples of extant intermediate grades of evolution.[5]

Darwin's suggestions were soon proven to be correct, and current research is investigating the genetic mechanisms responsible for eye development and evolution."

@ mantraa. . . i was just goin to make a post regarding that eye stuff but I had to delete it because I was too rude in the post and couldn't control myself. The arrogance of this person somehow manages to dwarf his/her ignorance. How can someone spew such nonsense so confidently, while pouring insults on anyone who disagrees?

am laughing in vanacular dat thing na man or woman

We got 6thou years of recorded history, sebi? In 6,000 years, not a single change of any kind has been noticed in any one animal, except for the few changes necessitated by different environments - which die out in successive generations! So what the 'ck? 'ck evolution! 'ck ardi! And if you wanna be down with ardi, 'ck you too!

the_seeker:

evolution! A theory in crisis
they found ardi and are all so excited. They think we have forgotten what happened to lucy, piltdown man and nebraska man.

The skull of piltdown man was hailed as one of those ever evasive missing links to human ancesotrs. It sat in the british museum of natural history 50 yrs and over 500 PHD thesis was written about. We saw lots of beautiful diagrams of how these 'ancestors' must have lived even up to details of their likely diet. Finally a shocker came! This was another hoax by evolutionist to strengthen their religion. I was discoverd this skull was a forgery built from remains of an oranguntang and a man. Can u imagine?

[size=18pt]Another creationist who wears his briming ignorance on his sleeves.  Are you also a Big Fat Christian Liar 4 Jesus (BFCL4J)?  I shall wait until all the evidence comes in, then I shall pronounce a verdict.
[/size]

Now, let's see what you said.  Science is a human enterprise and progresses essentially by trial & error, several steps forward, a few steps backs, make corrections, some more steps forward, etc, etc.  And as a humans exercise, there are bound to be some cheats in the process, who for selfish reasons will want to pervert the scientific process.  These cheats are usually found out BY THE GENERALITY OF GOOD AND HONEST SCIENTIST, who are generally kicked out and shamed and have their reputation forever damaged.

Piltdown Man was found to be a case of a fraudulent scientist seeking to pervert the scientific process.  Guess who found out that this was fraud?  Was it the creationists?  I doubt it.   In fact, you are mistaken (or lying for Jesus) in saying that over 500 PhD were based on Piltdown Man.  This 500 PhDs business has been exposed as a myth perpetuated by creationist to discredit the scientific process.  Take a look at this, from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html:


[size=14pt]
500 doctoral dissertations were written on Piltdown man[/size]

This claim appears in creationist sources. Gary Parker's pamphlet "Origin of Mankind", Impact series #101, Creation-Life Publishers (1981) makes the claim without qualification or source. Lubenow's Bones of Contention (1992) remarks that it is said that there were 500 doctoral dissertations but does not give a source.

This claim is clearly in error. When one considers the small number of PhD's in paleontology being granted currently and the even smaller number 80 years ago and the diversity of topics chosen for PhD theses a figure of half a dozen seems generous; in all probability there were none whatsoever. John Rice Cole notes that in the 20s there were about 2 dissertations per year in physical anthropology in the entire US on ANY topic.

Robert Parson made a systematic search of the bibliographies of The Piltdown Forgery by Weiner, The Piltdown Inquest by Blinderman, Piltdown: A Scientific Forgery and The Piltdown Papers by Spencer, The Antiquity of Man (1925) and New Discoveries Relating to the Antiquity of Man (1931) by Sir Arthur Keith. Spencer and Keith's works have extensive references and bibliographies of the primary research literature. There are no references to any doctoral dissertations. Likewise Millar's bibliography contains no references to any doctoral dissertation.

It is not clear whether this claim is a simple fabrication or whether it is an erroneous transcription from another source. In the introduction to The Piltdown Men (1972), Millar says "it is estimated that some five hundred essays were written about [Piltdown man]". This estimate is credible, the 1920 edition of H.G. Wells' The Outline of History remarks "more than a hundred books, pamphlets, and papers have been written [about Piltdown Man]". W. & A. Quenstedt listed over 300 references in 1936 in Hominidae fossiles. Fossilium Catalogus I: Animalia, 74: 191-197.

Millar gives no source, evidently not considering the matter to be important enough to document. However it probably was the editorial in the 10 July 1954 issue of Nature (vol. 274, # 4419, pp. 61-62) which describes a meeting of the Geological Society (30 June 1954) devoted to the exposure of the hoax. The editorial (unsigned) says:

   "It is agreed that the skull fragments are human and not of great antiquity; that the jawbone is ape; that they have no important evolutionary significance. More than five hundred articles and memoirs are said to have been written about Piltdown man. His rise and fall are a salutary example of human motives, mischief and mistake."

By coincidence, Spencer's The Piltdown Papers (1990) contains 500 letters, i.e. 500 items of correspondence between Piltdown principals. However this cannot be the source of the number 500 since The Piltdown Papers appeared well after Parker's pamphlet and Millar's book.

The most plausible explanation for this myth is that Millar and Parker both used the same source, the Nature editorial, and that Parker assumed that papers and memoirs were dissertations. In turn Lubenow's source was probably the Parker pamphlet. The truth, however, is unknown.

[size=14pt]
This is a good example of Science correcting itself[/size]

It has been argued that this is a good example of science correcting its errors. This argument is a bit roseate. As the Daily Sketch wrote:

   Anthropologists refer to the hoax as 'another instance of desire for fame leading a scholar into dishonesty' and boast that the unmasking of the deception is 'a tribute to the persistence and skill of modern research'. Persistence and skill indeed! When they have taken over forty years to discover the difference between an ancient fossil and a modern chimpanzee! A chimpanzee could have done it quicker.

Far from being a triumph of Science the hoax points to common and dangerous faults. The hoax succeeded in large part because of the slipshod nature of the testing applied to it; careful examination using the methods available at the time would have immediately revealed the hoax. This failure to adquately examine the fossils went unmarked and unnoticed at the time - in large part because the hoax admirably satisfied the theoretical expectations of the time.

The hoax illuminates two pitfalls to be wary of in the scientific process. The first is the danger of inadequately examining and challenging results that confirm the currently accepted scientific interpretation. The second is that a result, once established, tends to be uncritically accepted and relied upon without further reconsideration.

 Taken from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html

the_seeker:

The fossil of nebraska  man was actually a single  'molar' and an entire story of early human ancestors was built on this similar to piltdown man. Guess what? It was later discoverd to be the tooth of a pig!

There is no doubt that neanderthals. Cromagnon. And the likes were just diff races of humans. This will make more sense to you if you compare the skeletons of a negroid an inuit, a caucasiod and a pgymy from africa to realize that the differences are more stark than those of modern humans and their alleged ancestors.

Recent discoveries of serious ovelaps in time of 'modern humans' and their alleged ancestors is beginning to cause serious headaches for evolutionist.

What do you mean RACES OF HUMANS?  Have you been blind to ALL the recent DNA studies that have shown that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens are completely different species of Homos?  Over the last three t0 five years there has been plenty of DNA studies comparing the DNA of both species and the results COMPLETELY bears out the classification arrived at by paleontologists using comparative anatomy.  This is a complete vindication of the power of comparative anatomy, which while not being an exact science, is more or less on the right path.

What are these recent discoveries you allude to?   Who are making these discoveries?  Are they creationist scientists?   References please, otherwise, I shall accuse you of lying for Jesus and thus a BFCL4J.   Show us some scientific references.

the_seeker:

this is a big lie. Darwin hoped that these missing links would be found to validate his theory. When paleontologists could not find these fossils they claimed the fossils recods were incomplete.
Although  not all creatures that lived are fossilized but geologist have concluded that the records are in fact complete at least for the purpose of creating an evolutionary lineage. To solve the problem of missing fossils a prominent american paleotologists steven gay gould proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrum. Acoding to this theory oorganisms evolve by phyletic evolution and not microevolution (this requires many intermediate fossils) as propsed by darwin. The mechanics is that a fish goes to bed, suffers a huge mutation and wakes up as an amphibian (this analogy is jst for the purpose of explanation).

Another LIE from you.  Transitional fossils are being found all the time.  In Darwin's time, the science of paleontology was still in its infancy, but since then many many transitional fossils.  Did you not hear of these:

1)  Tiktaalik
2) Archaeopteryx
3) Anchiornis, only reported last month, See here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8273938.stm
4) ALL the whales transitions;

In fact, let me deal with the whale with this one question:


[size=18pt]WHY is it that some whales (about 5%) are born with fully formed hindlimbs, limbs much like those of a cow?   How would you account for this anomaly under a immutable theory of species?
[/size]


You seem to have no understanding of some scientific theory, yet you feel capable if critiquing it.  Is this not the height of lunacy.  The theory of punctuated equilibrium is not a refutation of the evolution.  It is simply a theory that aims to address the SPEED of evolution.  Look at what you say:

Acoding (sic)  to this theory oorganisms evolve by phyletic evolution and not microevolution (this requires many intermediate fossils) as propsed by darwin. The mechanics is that a fish goes to bed, suffers a huge mutation and wakes up as an amphibian (this analogy is jst for the purpose of explanation).

This is total rubbish and nowhere is anything like this supported in The Theory of Evolution By Natural Selection.

the_seeker:

This initially was welcomed by all scientist as a solution. Further analysis by biologist reveaalsed a seroius flaw. A small mutation is baad enough for an organism but a huge mutation is very distatrous and that the small populations required for this theory to work would lead to inbreeding and spread of disease. This theory has failed and brought down the entire evolution theory with it. Stephen jay unintentionally exposed the flaw in a theory he was trying to save. He had made scientist to honestly admit the fact that fossils records was complete leaving them high and dry with his failed theory.

This is similar to what Goberchev did with communism in russia. In an attempt to fix communism he exposed the flaws that finally collapsed it

If you think the theory of evolution has failed,  Why is it that fossils of mammals or birds or dinosaurs are NEVER found in the pre-cambrian period?   Why do they only come much much later?

the_seeker:

another liar. Darwin did say 'if organs of irreducible complexity can be found to exist, my theory would definately fail'. The eye. kindey are only a few. These organs and a host of others are practicaly useless if a single part is mising. How then could such organs have evolved. Evolution is just sensless fairytales

Here again, you are the liar  and it show you lack of comprehension of literary material.   Below, I shall present the full paragraph from Darwins Origin of Species:

[size=14pt]Organs of extreme perfection and complication.[/size]

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition. Amongst existing Vertebrata, we find but a small amount of gradation in the structure of the eye, and from fossil species we can learn nothing on this head. In this great class we should probably have to descend far beneath the lowest known fossiliferous stratum to discover the earlier stages, by which the eye has been perfected.
 Source http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html

Does the above suggest that Darwin admitted that the eye could NOT be produced by Natural Selection?

lol, lol ;d ;d :d

you guys are fighting a losing battle. even the catholic church has accepted evolution.

Koye4sshow:

We got 6thou years of recorded history, sebi? In 6,000 years, not a single change of any kind has been noticed in any one animal, except for the few changes necessitated by different environments - which die out in successive generations! So what the 'ck? 'ck evolution! 'ck ardi! And if you wanna be down with ardi, 'ck you too!

so imagine those few changes, including new diseases, over many million years.
i find comfort in the expression that a million years is like a day with God, so evolution might be the Long Play version of  creation

anonimi:

so imagine those few changes, including new diseases, over many million years.
i find comfort in the expression that a million years is like a day with God, so evolution might be the Long Play version of  creation

Which your biblical creationist had no idea about lol


[size=20pt]Oh Ardi pardon them for they know not what they do[/size]

huxly before i start with u let me warn u dat i am well researched in paleontolgy and evolution so u cannot just dump junk u googled up on me. I expext that u should at least have the intelligence to read through your post and compress it to a comprehsible volume. nairaland is not for copy and paste but for intelligent discusions and arguements.
My responses

1. It does not matter whether it was 50 Phd thesis or 500. I might even excuse u for what the motive of the forger was. It just proves how closed minded evolutionist are. This skull sat in the museum of natural history for 50 years but nobody cared to properly date(which would hav exposed the fraud) it instead they were busy writting thesis and drawing photos and tell us what this fossil eat and how it lived. There are countless examples of fogery or misrepresentations like nebraska man, embrayonic recapitulation theory, peppered moth story etc. Most of these are still deliibertly repeated as evidence of evolution even after the hoax was discovered. The problem is evoulutionist manufacture 'facts' from what is at best circumstantial evidence.
When it comes to evolutn and creation they act as if the hav neva heard of the theory of multiple working hypothesis.

5. The eye and other organs of irreducible complexity will always remain a problem for evolutionist. My arguement is not whether differnt complexities of eye type does not occur in nature as u r making it seem. The point is a human eye for example could neva have evolved from an optic nerve. How can a human eye function without a lens or partly developed one or a retina of cornea etc. This defied explanation.

2. First of all i neva said neanderthal and homo sapiens i said neanderthals and cromagnon. Mind u evolutionist ealier assumed neandethals were ancestors of homosapiens until overlap in time proved them wrong. same is beginning to hapen in case of cromagnon and neanderthals.

3. Missing links? Am sure if evolutions found a bat fossil (assuming bats dont exist today) they would tag it as a missing link btw mamals and bird .
I am so suprised that u claim to knw anything abt evolutn and call achopteryx a missing link.
something intersting happens often in evoultionary circles. One they find a 'missing link' they jubilate for the world to see. After a few year of thorough rsearch and criticism(by open minded scientists) it is uncermonously withdrawn as a fake or misrepresentation.
missing link is a series of thousands of transitns from a point A to a point B where a new species can be said to have formed. The implicatn of this is that we expect millions more fossils of the intermedies compared to Species A or B. So how come we cant find any (that is tangible) and we have plently of A and B?

4. It is obvious u knw nothing about punctuated equilibrum. Why are u always lying. I neva claimed it refuted evolution. I only said it confimed its flaws in an attempt to fix it.
It claims tht orgsnisms remian stable for a long time( stasis) then undergo massive mutation to another species hence no need for intermediry forms. This theory however failed cos biologist could not comprehend such massive mutation

5 the eye and other organs of ireducible complexity will always remian a problem for evolutionist. My arguemnt is not whether diff complexities of eyes do not occur in nature are u r making it seem. My point is, a human eye for example could neva have evolved from an optic nerve. Can a human eye function without a lens or a partly developed one or a retina or cornean or pupil or any of the over 20 vital parts. This defies explanation.

having answered all your responses, i have a few questions for u

how did behaviours (something virtual) evolve?
how did patterns and designs evolve? Darwin said in a letter to his friend 'the sight of the peacoks tail makes me sick'
give me one example of positive mutation in humans (apart from sickle cell. Lol)
why has the bacteria remained unchanged for 1 billion years? Despite being the most mutant of organisms
what happened in the cambrian explosion?
How come drosphilia has showed not evolutn in the labs despite bombardment by scientis with rays for over sixty years. A pecies that produces a new genearipn every 7 days
And finally how did life originate?

The problem with evulutionist is that in a desperate attemp to exclude God thet have chosen to believ in ludicrous fairytales. They prefer to ascribe the magnificience and glory of life to NATURE. If only they could replace that word with GOD

The Devil is really using all these so call scientists/evolutionists to wage war against the Holy Truth of the Bible.

Lmao Saw it in the papers last week, even the title was amusing it read "meet your aunt ardi"
I can just imagine the amount of money and time that will and would be shed on this "ardi fellow which will just amount to guesswork, this scientist are not really sure.
All scientific finds are just theories. nothing more, nothing less.
How are we so sure that this "ardi is not an animal that has gone extinct sef
I certainly won't agree that this ape-looking female is my ancestor, if you want it to be yours good luck to you.