New Theory of Evolution: Apes devolve...
First Prev
of 12
Next Last
Carmine Fragione

Edgewater, FL

#224 Sep 18, 2013
It is rational to think that the earlier parent species would tend to have less and less number of overall chromosomes and more DNA genetic sequences in those fewer but longer chromosome strips. As the species descend and are impaired by sexually transmitted diseases, radiation damages and retro viruses the number of chromosomes suffer X fragmentations , trisomy episodes and tend to lose DNA sequences while breaking longer chromosomes into pairs of shorter broken ones healed with additional telomeres.
So the apes must have fallen away from a higher species, as the human and the human may have fallen away from a common ancestor even a greater creature than the modern humans. Devolution seems to follow design erosion predictions but vertical evolution has never been seen, in any event.
kaddleman

West Mifflin, PA

#225 Sep 19, 2013
youtube.com/watch... …………… Disordinance africans
are monkeys

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#226 Sep 20, 2013
Carmine Fragione wrote:
Devolution seems to follow design erosion predictions but vertical evolution has never been seen, in any event.
With the sole exception of every living thing on the planet.
LMT

Akron, OH

#227 Sep 21, 2013
supersport wrote:
I would just like to call everyone's attention to a new book out called "The Upright Ape" by Aaron Filler. I just received it in the mail a couple days ago and have not had a chance to read every page, but I've been able to read enough to get the gist his new theory as to where and what humans came from.
You evolutionists know how you've been telling everyone for all these years how we humans came from tree-swinging, knuckle-walking chimpanzee-type apes? You can throw that nonsense out the window. According to this guy, it's the other way around. See, according to the fossil evidence, bones that are either human, or indistinguishable from human, have been unearthed from places that no such bones should be unearthed. There are many such examples in the book, but I'll quote from the preface:
"In part, this book details what I have discovered since the day in 1981 when David Pilbeam placed in my hands the problem of explaining a seemingly inexplicable 21-million-year-old fossil. This bone had the totally unique features found in humans, but it was from a creature that lived 15 million years too soon. There should not have been anything that looked like this until the human-chimp split 6 million years ago. I believe this conundrum can be explained, but Darwinian Evolutionary Theory as it now stands cannot provide everything that is required to explain it." Pg. 9
So, in other words, human bones were found in the same strata as other supposedly 21 million year old creatures. Any normal person would take from this that maybe -- just maybe -- that "strata" was not layed down slowly, over a course of millions of years, but maybe in one catastrophic event -- say, oh I don't know -- like A FLOOD, or something weird like that.
But no. Instead of assuming catastrophic geology, this guy just transforms the theory to make it fit...and in the meantime dumps out 50 years of paleontology and anthropology in the waste basket.
And this guy doesn't mince words. Here are his conclusions:
"It is a widely held position among anthropologists who study Australopithecus and Homo that upright bipedalism must have arisen from a quadrupedal common ancestor with the chimpanzee. However, there is no definitive fossil evidence at all for this position. All the evidence, which is reviewed in detail in the following chapter, actually appears to point the other way when it is fully and fairly considered. Certainly, some theoretical models and historical views exist that predate our fossil discoveries and thus support a quadrupedal ancestor for the so-called hominine lineage of human ancestors......However, the evidence form the fossil record and the evidence from our understanding of lineage relationships has failed to support these positions in any definitive way. The time has come fro the specialists involved to sagely put aside four decades of hypotheses based solely on the quadrupedal ancestor."
(next paragraph)...."there is clearly absolutely no basis for insisting that a primarily upright bipedal last common ancestor could not have been present a virtually every branch point that leads away from our own hominiform lineage. The fact is that a quadrupedal ancestor for the hominines remains to be proven."
(next paragraph) "There is just no way to deny the mounting evidence from anatomy, genetics, embryology, and paleontology. Almost certainly, the ancestor shared by the quadrupedal apes and the bipedal humans was itself an upright biped." pg. 222
to be continued...
Science is not changed by a single non-peer-reviewed book from a creationist-friendly publisher. If this author has the guts to put his findings and conclusions up for peer review, he should go for it. If he were correct (highly unlikely) he could be awarded the Nobel prize. But the trend among creationists is to just sneak into the party, drop a turd in the punchbowl, and leave.
beers

Plano, IL

#228 Sep 22, 2013
LMT wrote:
<quoted text>Science is not changed by a single non-peer-reviewed book from a creationist-friendly publisher. If this author has the guts to put his findings and conclusions up for peer review, he should go for it. If he were correct (highly unlikely) he could be awarded the Nobel prize. But the trend among creationists is to just sneak into the party, drop a turd in the punchbowl, and leave.
Yeah because they are very open minded. Oh wait

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#229 Oct 18, 2013
I have a new theory of evolution.

Creationists evolved from Chimpanzee's and Atheists evolved from pre-humans

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#230 Oct 20, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
I have a new theory of evolution.
Creationists evolved from Chimpanzee's and Atheists evolved from pre-humans
But what about the fleas?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#231 Oct 21, 2013
_Susan_ wrote:
<quoted text>
But what about the fleas?
They evolved from dogs.:-)

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#232 Oct 26, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
They evolved from dogs.:-)
I thought it was from cats!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#233 Oct 26, 2013
_Susan_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought it was from cats!
let's see...(picking up my ukelele)*my... cat... has... fleas..*

nope, just doesn't work....

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#234 Oct 26, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>let's see...(picking up my ukelele)*my... cat... has... fleas..*
nope, just doesn't work....
lol

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 12
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min DanFromSmithville 33,819
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 52 min ChristineM 199,152
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr ChristineM 151,274
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr ChristineM 14,797
My Story Part 1 5 hr JanusBifrons 1
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 9 hr Don Barros Serrano 179,706
News ID Isn't Science, But That's the Least Of Its P... 10 hr FREE SERVANT 26
More from around the web