HOME | DD
Valkaneer — Humanoidal Evolution
by-nc-nd
Published: 2016-05-31 10:02:45 +0000 UTC; Views: 983; Favourites: 4; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
I believe in evolution as the change in animal species through genetic diversity over time, but only within the kingdoms represented. I do not see evidence that a worm becomes a fish, becomes a frog, becomes a lizard, becomes a bird, becomes a rat.Nor do I see any historical proof of any "beneficial" mutations.
All mutations are maladies that impede the organism instead of helping it.
Change by progression of cellular processes through pair bonding or mitoses is not mutation.
It's natural progression to modern states through genetic lineage.
But mankind is the only non-evolved animal.
He has racially exclusive variants within the same basic family of created ancestry, and no primordial root commonality.
Run-tell-dat!
lol
Related content
Comments: 12
I dunno, man, my body is kinda shaped like the Yeti/Neanderthal to be honest. Than god not my
head or face..
How bout what they did to my boy, Harambe? Now that is a proper use of the term 'tragic'.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No living creature is more involved than an other, it's just on who will survive. And no biologist said that a frog could become a worm or vice versa. When an organism reproduces there are some imperfections on the copying of the DNA and that can have some effect that helps the new organism or doesn't. Sometimes that can lead to death, not help at all(or cary something that might be useful but not in the future), or make the creature have an advantage over the others. This helps it survive and reproduce, so the cycle continues. Over the course of thousands of years the different members of a species get so evolved that they can't reproduce with eachother (eachother meaning with members of different groups) so they are considered as a different species. All species evolve (with slower pace if they can survive easily with no competitors to take their place). And that's visible with humans (for example in africa people with darker skin had a lower chance of dying(from getting skin cancer from the sun) but we did not evovle separately for that much so we are the same species). But if we waited for let's say a million years we could not recognise eachother.
I wrote too much
go see a book or something or ask a biologist
bye!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Paleoanthropology, evolutionary theory, evolutionary psychology, genetic transference, and cellular biology, all are based on the foundation stone of Darwinian Theory. And I've read dozens of books cover to cover on the topic's listed.
Thank you for obnoxiously regurgitating the 7th grade lesson I received at 13 on the bogus theory with a vague hint of your reason in trolling.
Now go apply it to the test curriculum and get a B+, but remember that just because you have to please the authority standing on your neck to achieve marks in school, it doesn't mean you have to give all your thoughts to them willingly.
Then study for another twenty years and realize the holes in the theory that can't be reconciled scientifically.
Thanks for the commentary.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
That's why there is science, to try understand what we don't understand. If you can prove your theory, go ahead. If you just try to confirm yourself you don't go anywhere. If there is an error we improve the theory trying o get closer to understanding nature. Also not any scientist is right. Anyways, evolution is confirmed so many times... well what am I trying to do now, I give up, i don't care what you think, go talk so someone who has done experiments. What are you trying to prove here?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nothing to someone who has their mind set against it.
Obviously you disregard whatever I type as fantasy and not allegorically derived.
I wonder what motivates you to post on my deviation at all?
I don't believe in that vast a change, because I don't believe in the extreme age of Earth.
If you go by that theory, then for 22 of the 24 hours Earth has existed (as a theory model) life was non-existent and in the last 15 minutes dinosaurs and mankind with all his technology has developed. If evolution from one cell took over 2 hours to become higher order biology, then how did it advance so rapidly in the last few minutes?
But evolution has as many holes as Swiss-cheese when you really strip away the non-science "theory" and get right to the heart of what has never been solved by the pseudo-sciences of geology and origination genealogical biology. Chiefly in explaining how life began at all. I find it an attempt to understand what we don't and can't without being able to transcend time as a barrier.
No laboratory study can be done to back it with real, pure scientific method.
Human origin is the most problematic seeing as a chimpanzee is relatively unchanged for something like 260,000,000 years if the accepted timeline is used. Where are the half retarded, fire making, stone and bone wielding, hairless hand gesturing cousins of us? Or the aquatic fish catching upright kinfolks of those apes? Why and how can the theory exist without the proof of the intermediate phases?
It leads a diligent student of origin and change through progression to other questions such as the broken strand of DNA in every ape species (and the pre-humans we have harvested viable strands from) becoming mysteriously "united" in human DNA at roughly 25,000 years ago or missing a key combination in the sequence.
You have to either rely on Arthur C. Clark or Sumerian Myth and say alien intervention is at play.
Or concede to the dirty words no one wants credit as factually viable.
They give us a neat set of progressions from Erectus to Neanderthalensis to modern Sapiens Sapiens. When in fact, the number of evolutionary changes from Neanderthal to Human is on the order of 65,000 missing links, not just one or two. Same with Erectus to Neanderthal, or earlier common ancestors.
The question is not why fossils don't show up in earlier strata deposits, the question is how geologic were the area's that housed any fossils at all, and how rare a fossil of anything actually is.
Then logically attempting to understand the bias towards alternative history and fact.
How it is perfectly fine to construct a whole skull from one tooth or one eye-socket.
Realizing at last that all the "actual fossils" of the so called early-pre-human family can be housed in one shoe box on one corner of one table in the warehouse of bones in our museums.
But for years a pig molar was upheld as, The Missing Link.
Neaderthal and Erectus are complete because they dwelt in caves and near rivers. Paleontologists just like to lift the shoulders up to human level to get rid if the obvious anatomical sway of the hands at the mid thigh (that all apes have).
And ignore the definite triangular difference in the ape ancestry rib-cage compared to our nearly oval design. The reason a chimp can tear Vin Diesel, literally apart limb-from-limb. Because as mighty as we are, we are so soft and delicate compared to ape strong.
How does flesh and blood survive in a tyrannosaurus skeleton 145.5 million to 199.6 million years?
Were they here thousands of years ago instead?
Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera....
Not to mention the historical references to big hairy or short hairy wild men. Your scientists don't even attempt to determine any truth to it. They have no proof so they don't seek it.
This is intellectually amoral.
Does a physicist give up on a theory because he hasn't found a proof?
Why then is there any biased pre-supposed arrogance about certain subjects simply because there isn't any proof?
It's rooted in the personal beliefs of scientist's themselves and overrides the logical merit of possible fact. They don't want it to be true, so it isn't, and you and I must accept their opinion.
Or you could say no, and devise your own theory in the alternate but never abandon facts, reason, logic, or science. If you can't see that is the point or that this it is in action in my replies, please stop responding.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
hey easy man, just trolling. calm down.
As it seems to me, it does not really help if you just believe. If you can find a
way to prove it practicaly then it's all fine. Not with just logic but with experiments.
So far the current theory seems to be quite accurate but I don't see why another theory
couldn't replace it. Nice talking with you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Theory is the operative word.
Look up the meaning of that word and you will soon realize why science books are clear on calling it the theory of evolution and not the fact of evolution.
However, I'm sure some liberal zealot (new religious fanatic) Darwinian's will or have tried to sneak that phrase into public text books. Australia, likely has had it there since the 50's. They justified the extermination of the native culture there by evolutionary scientific eugenic standards and named a city Darwin.
I see nothing but mounted conjecture with reinforced opinion in the theory.
Accurate is a misnomer.
And yes, by trolling, you give me the chance to defend my position with logic, I have science to back my claims as ingenious as any atheist or evolutionist can detail, and their facts in scrutiny are just as shady as any they'd hear me offer.
The world just wants to believe that true spiritual morality is reduced by a theoretical animal ancestry, so they can feel better about how horrible we all really are.
That's sad.
The fact that most atheists become atheists on collage campuses is an indicator to me, that sexual immorality is a major driving factor in the willingness to cast off any moral consequence to ones actions.
The rise world wide in campus rapes and inappropriate student mentor relationships is an indicator.
The student is free to be immoral if repressed at home in adolescence. Students with poor moral upbringing carry on like animals sexually in their free time. Sexual activity levels are rated in evolutionary terms and the collegiate world and environment promotes excesses at the age of the student.
They warn that by 40 the drive and desire to behave in such a way will be either passing or over. A pressure builds that mounts and forces the student to make a life choice that they may very well regret at 40. But these sexual studies are not drafted or promoted by students.
They are given to the student by the professor. Who is often the downside of 40, and embraced his personal wickedness with hopes of spreading more.
Particularly in the 18-20 female range of pupil.
Most males will just go along with sexual trysts no matter what they personally believe, so the matter is compounded.
In time, the atheists will be burning us at the steaks like the puritans in the 1600's.
Divergence is death, eugenics is the law, God is dead....
But the ridiculous book I live by foretold this end more than 3,000 years ago.
I'm ready, I won't fight, or cling to this life like it matters.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"And no biologist said that a frog could become a worm or vice versa." This is simply untrue.
Nor did I sight the ability to devolve by an amphibian or any higher order organism.
Evolutionary Biology hinges on the premise that all organisms begin in a developmental larval stage as a similar worm-like pupa.
A chart drawn on this subject in the 1800's and later debunked as inaccurate and deliberately altered for similar appearances although discredited as a pro-evolutionist scam, is still used as a key example chart in collegiate classrooms to this day.
While creationist scientific journals written at and around the same time are disregarded as pseudo-science.
How convenient that we add and subtract based on our bias and call it science when sound science isn't and never was a part of evolutionary theory.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
He posted before you, not in response to you.
There is no fight, just a debate on two conflicting opinions, I guess....
👍: 0 ⏩: 0