Don't force me to get up and actually prove my argument

ebola has a better argument then you

Go away peasant troll this debate is a too complex for your child brain

says the mental defective on disability

Pretty sure that's not the debate and my disability is not relevant lol

it seems to me that you are the complete ignoramus here, again i stated nothing to do with religion, or bible thumping etc... the theory of evolution is regarded as fact in some scientific communities sure but i dont see how we have evolve from monkeys or chimps and yet they remain here? isnt the idea behind evolution like darwin's theory, survival of the fittest and etc....? how come there are no midway relatives alive? things evolve because it is necessary for them to survive and thrive? and yet the things we evolved from remain here, and yes they are somewhat intelligent but nowhere near what humans are. there are a lot of questions that go unanswered. you can flame all you want but you're not smart enough to answer them either.

as far as to what missing link im looking for, there are so many its retarded

Some of these gaps which should be filled in by missing links are huge. Consider the gap between invertebrates and vertebrate fish. Which marine sea creature evolved into a fish with a backbone and internal skeleton? Fish fossils are even found in the lower Cambrian, and dated very early in the evolution scenario. But there are no missing links, no hint of ancestors. The missing links, which should be present in abundance, are still missing

If some type of fish evolved into some type of amphibian, there should have been distinct steps along the way of 90% fish/10% amphibian; then 80% fish/20% amphibian; etc., leading to the 100% amphibians we have today

1) We didn't evolve from chimps. Both chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

2) Vertebrate fish evolved in the cambrian period through ostracaderms - primitive fish with very little skeletal structure and no jaws. Before that there are invertebrate chordates. Chordates are characterized by having a nerve cord running along the length of the back - the precursor to the spine and indeed it is still present in most vertebrates today.

3) There will always be a 'missing link' by your definition. What is the missing link between me and my child? My child looks slightly different from me so where is the creature that looks half like me and half like him? Your argument for the existence of these 'missing links' is full-blown idiocy.



Be my guest. Go ahead and try me.

This post was edited by Scaly on Oct 16 2014 08:43am

OK will do always enjoy a good argument

anyways my brain is very tired. but im talking about human evolution like theres one of are evolutions that happened but we cannot find what we transformed in thats what im talking about.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/03/21/the-true-history-of-the-origin-of-man-the-anunnaki-and-genetic-manipulation/

anyways it seems its more of a theory than fact nevermind.

stuff that ive learned than again evolution isnt a 100% solid its quite logical and makes more sense than creatonism but still not 100%




This post was edited by S3rial_Joe on Oct 16 2014 08:51am

That's ok. Feel free to research instead of giving an answer straight away. I positively encourage you to do so. I want you to research and learn about what you're talking about. That's what this is all about. Just don't forget to cite your sources.

he is the creature that looks half like you and half like the woman you impregnated, does that mean he evolved from you and her?

show me pics of the actual fossils that humans and chimps evolved from? oh wait you cant because they are 'missing' show me pics of fossils showing me the transitionary fossils in between them, and im not asking for the crude drawings all over the place id like to see real proof, oh gee i bet you cant, otherwise it would be the fact of evolution, not the theory. adaptation is fact, evolution is not. get over it.