Moontanman

​ I am skeptical... This is demonstrably not true, immortal why do you not see this? Your mind does not exist independent from the brain, your brain is all you have, change it in even a minor way and your mind is no more... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage

No, they are evidently true, evidence points very strongly in the direction of common descent and in no other direction... In a court of law the evidence for evolution is similar to deductive reasoning, such evidence is commonly used to solve murders where there is no eye witnesses... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning At one time it would be difficult to refute your assertions with complete certainty but now with genetics we can indeed say that all life on earth is evidently not only related but descended from earlier life forms. I have to ask, what evidence do you have that various life forms were specially created? The fossil record certainly doesn't show any evidence for this and the genes do not give us any indication of this, in fact the genes say that all life is related. Again not true, the fossil evidence indicates common descent and so do the genes... Can you provide any evidence of special creation? Yup, Horses and donkeys can mate and have viable off spring and they differ genetically by 2 chromosomes... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_(biology) It is not impossible...

Great illustration of the concept...

I'll treat this as an honest question and give you an honest answer, no one is really sure, all we know for sure is that there are (afaik) three basic linage's of organisms that seem to have emerged after a very long time in which DNA was freely exchanged between all organisms and the idea of common decent as we know it is inapplicable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaea Eukaryotes have further diverged by the inclusion of bacteria as part of their cells, mitochondria and chloroplasts are two examples of this. There is a hypothesis that Eukaryotes are a fusion of bacteria and archaea but I'm not sure if this is mainstream science or not. Actually it does, you seem to be expecting an ape to give birth to a non ape, this is not what happens, evolution occurs in populations not individuals... As i said earlier, if you could somehow look outside time and see all of your ancestors (or mine for that matter) there would never be a individual that you could point to and say that is the first human. Each and every generation would be predominantly the same as it's parents with tiny differences the same way your children are similar to you but not identical, the further back you go the bigger the differences would be but at no time would a parent look down and wonder if their child was not the same species as themselves... I'm not sure how this is relevant, perhaps you should elaborate... Actually we do interbreed animals that are further apart biologically than a human and say a Bonobo chimp, genetically there is a problem due to one of chromosomes having to do with reproduction being radically different but I doubt the experiment has ever been done, a chimp might object to mating with a human (considering how strong chimps are that could be a very bad thing for the man) but it has been proposed that with a little technological intervention it could be done... the resulting off spring would probably be a sterile "mule" but it is not impossible by any means...

chickens came from jungle fowl, if you were able to trace any one chicken and trace it's origin from each chicken to the last chicken generation before you would at no time be able to point to a particular chicken and say this is where the chicken became a chicken. Even though you could look back as far as you liked there would be a complete spectrum of chicken all way back to a lizard or if you wanted you could trace it back to a single eukaryotic cell but at no time could you pick out an egg and say yes that's the egg the first chicken came from, yet again you show the dishonest creationist tactic of ridiculing science with no real knowledge of science your self. you could trace your own linage the same way and all you would get is a spectrum of individuals that slowly over time have more and more monkey like traits but at no time would you be able to point to an individual and say "yes that's the first human" BTW, every human is born with mutations, the average is something like 120 mutations per zygote but older fathers pass down more mutations than younger ones... http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7412/full/nature11396.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20120823 Seriously dude, your lack of understanding does not falsify the thing you know nothing about...

No, no one with any knowledge of evolution would suggest this, why do you? Again, no, you display a disturbing lack of knowledge even about what evolution is much less how it works. Your point would be? How is this comment relevant to the issue at hand? Umm... fit perfectly together? Can you confirm this? This is relevant how? Please elaborate, this appears to be nonsensical from the perspective of science and evolution... So you do know the definition of creationism... Where did they get the hip bones? Why would whales have hip bones? Think this through... When did they drown? Who says they did?

As the sun begins to seriously age it will begin to expand until it occupies the orbit of Venus at least, the surface of the earth will become hotter than Venus is now. This sun will be a red giant, it will radiate away more energy than it does now, but this irrelevant to the issue at hand... I am still stuck on the "oxygen evaporates" and causes rain thing, what do you mean by this? No, actually a very old range was used, in the example i am thinking of, the Appalachians, no volcanoes Anecdotal evidence is irrelevant here...

immortal, are you asserting that the mind is separate from the brain? This is demonstrably not true...

I was thinking squirrel but the head is wrong for squirrel or gerbil... the most basal form should resemble relatively undifferentiated members of many mammalian lines. The tail is wrong for shrews, the legs are wrong for a gerbil as well, gives some real insight into early mammals i think....

Swansont i guess my own ignorance of the math involved is my main stumbling block but to me it seems like much ado about nothing...

The correct quote was the one I highlighted, the animal is the artists conception of the ancestor of all placental mammals, not just humans... shrews to house cats, mice to whales... all of them...

Agreed, it's fairly easy to show that everyone alive around 3500 years ago is either the ancestor of everyone alive today or the ancestor of no one... a you tuber named c0nc0rdance has a great series of videos about this...

I guess it's because I let him drag me down to his level and beat me to death with experience...

I think you make a good point, while i don't expect to see silicone life on the earth suddenly being found, Thomas Gold suggests there is evidence of it in his book "The Deep Hot Biosphere" but his evidence is circumstantial at best. What they are suggesting is that at some point there was more than one genesis of life and that other genesis might be different enough from DNA life that the tests we use for DNA life wouldn't detect this life but it would still be carbon based and be similar to what we recognize as life. so similar that "seeing" one of them wouldn't raise an eyebrow, only chemical tests could determine this life had no genetic connection with our type of life... This shadow biosphere would exist right along side our own and might even have a superficial connection with it, just not a connection of genetic descent...

I live in the southern US, to find such racist child would generally only require finding a private religious school... Possibly not that a direct connection but i see it regularly around me but i can say it's not as bad, even close, as it was 40 years ago. Being multi racial might give me a bit of a unique perspective on this.. i was raised to understand this attitude was a lie but even today it's not universally accepted that character has nothing to do with race and to be completely honest some blacks are as racist as some whites. I like to call it the angry old white/black man syndrome, I get it from both sides although black people are more likely to recognize my multi racial back ground than white people for some reason... my sky blue eyes confuses them

Again, no, please look at the link i provided and the graph, real science... it works... the mass reduction in the sun is trivial compared to it's total mass btw... and over time the sun is getting brighter not dimmer and eventually it will indeed get much bigger but that would again require some understanding of real science... please watch your own videos and see how rainfall fits into that equation... No, actually this has been documented on high mountain tops and in the lab, cities have no bearing on this...

This guy is an artists conception of the most basal of all placental mammals, all mammals evolved from this line, land and marine and everything in between... http://news.yahoo.com/meet-mama-first-ancestor-placental-mammals-revealed-191137721.html Um, no, all whales descend from the same land mammal line and bears are not part of that line... your last link is about seals and sea lions, not part of the line resulting in whales... http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

Yes, the Creationist museum in Tennessee (i think) it is a government funded museum as well, makes you fell all warm and fuzzy inside dudn't it? http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

All immortal ever provides as evidence is appeals to authority, he has no empirical evidence what so ever...

Whales evolved from land mammals, the line of decent is quite well known and in some real detail. Consistency was being dishonest, he knows it but he said it anyway because that's what creationists do...

His description dishonestly suggested that a whale directly evolved from a fish, that is a lie, he knows it, but he said it anyway. in reality a whale is a mammal which evolved from a reptile which evolved from an amphibian which evolved from a fish (very simplified version) so he tried to ridicule evolution by saying something that seemed to be true, the average person who has knowledge of evolution probably understands the line of decent in a simple way, but it is not a direct line of decent from a fish to a whale, he knows it but his main goal is to obfuscate the situation, not lend any real understanding of it...

You have to believe in magic... Lyrics by Ann and Nancy Wilson...

your link in no way supports this assertion... if you think it does feel free to elaborate... I'm not sure what you are trying to show here, please elaborate... Absurd assertions do not trump reality, yes a tiny fish did indeed over many millions years evolve evolve into a whale but to try and say the decent is direct to lend credence to your assertion that evolutionary theory is absurd is more than a bit less than honest... You know what you said was not accurate, why did you make such a statement if you are looking for reality? Again this is indeed technically true but your attempt to make it look absurd fails on a great many levels as do all creationist arguments, they do not have the science to back up their horse feathers so they try and use subterfuge to discredit what they cannot do with real evidence.. yes, a population of herbivores can over successive generations evolve a population of carnivores but your mechanism is false and nothing but an attempt to use ridicule instead of evidence to win your position, totally dishonest dude but that is what Creation Science is all about, lies and misdirection, nothing more...

Creation Science is an oxymoron... lets try real science... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Life_cycle Can you give some evidence of the idea that evaporation of oxygen drives rainfall? How does this support your assertion that placing dung in a desert will result in the desert becoming productive? I suggest you do so, but since a desert island can refer to an island that has no soil but doesn't mean no rain, i wait to see if your study is relevant... Actually higher levels of CO2 can be shown to decrease modern vegetation growth due to acidic conditions created by extra CO2... Don't be insulting, it does nothing to support a bad argument...

Not an entirely accurate description of the article huh?