re: Fossils in Greece Suggest Human Ancestors Evolved in Europe, Not Africa

quote:

---

I know and understand evolution just fine.

The fact that you said there are "endless examples" of intermediary species in the fossil record flies in the face of paleontology in every conceivable way to the point where you cannot be taken seriously.

---

You've more than held serve and met the challenge of Evolutionists.

They will keep on insisting that those who dare question this half-baked, hoax-addled theory "don't understand evolution".

This Cult of Un-Proven Supposition & Theory refuses to examine the evidence. They can't possibly defend its own religion by the "scientific method", the Timeline, nor as you've noted, via their dubious and ridiculously insistent claim of "intermediate species".

I see some cute fantasy artwork has even desperately been cited as "proof" of some past "hybrid" creatures -- supposedly I assume as "evidence" of "intermediate species in the fossil record.

Of course ZERO "intermediate species" have EVER been found -- and even the High Priests of Evolution rue this huge weakness in their theory/religion.

quote:

---

Where'd you find that drivel?

---

You are a good troll, I will always give you credit for that.

quote:

---

That’s not what this article is claiming at all. It’s not even attempting to dispute our ancestors evolved in Africa

---

It is. OOA asserts that all hominids and apes came from Africa. This finding disputes that.

It's also worth noting that all modern humans have neanderthal DNA, with the exception of sub-saharan Africans. Clearly, there is a lot about human evolution that we haven't uncovered.

quote:

---

quote:
Yes, they do, numbnuts.
Now you're pressed because your religion is being questioned. This is good.

---

More frustration that you are that stupid and cannot grasp the basic concepts being laid out for you by people who understand how it works better than you do.

quote:

---

Sure there are, and they all are easily qualified in taxonomic order. There are explosions of new species, there are millions of years of species that disappear, then suddenly reappear in new, albeit similar lifeforms with ZERO transitional life forms known to science in between. This is common and expected. You gave an example of deuterostomes, that's great. Starfish are deuterostomes. That doesn't prove your assertion that there are endless examples of intermediary species in the fossil record. I googled it again to be sure: intermediary species in the fossil record is not looking good.

You understand how wrong you are, right? You understand the acknowledgement that the fossil record of intermediary species is pitiful across the board? You're making a case for something that, as we know it, like aliens, doesn't exist in any quantifiable form?

---

You didn't look hard enough and clearly don't understand how lineages work. There are legions of connecting species between deuterostomes and, say, a snake. Or deuterostomes and, say, a starfish. Again, that you don't understand how evolution works is your onus.

quote:

---

quote:
That you fail to understand that is how evolution works seems to more due to your simpleton understanding of "transition" species than it is a shortcoming of the fossil record.
My boy, the fossil record is, literally and metaphorically speaking, set in stone. There are not, and likely will never be any mass uncovering of a smoking gun fossil record that shows a planetary-level of species building up and coinciding towards more advanced lifeforms. There are extinction events, reappearances of different but similar animals, and nothing in between. And to assert that we know how the genome sequence works from the beginning of life, all the way out to all of the branches of the tree of life like you've asserted is like your declaration that google will give endless examples of intermediary fossils in the record: laughable.

---

Again, that is not how any of this works, and the gaps in your comprehension are plainly obvious. There is no "building up and coinciding towards more advanced lifeforms". Otherwise so-called "simple" life forms such as bacteria would no longer exist. Species evolve, branch, evolve, branch - over hundreds of millions of years with layers upon layers of minute changes over time that incrementally add up to large changes.

And no one asserted to "know how the genome sequence works from the beginning of life", so not only do you not understand how evolution works, your reading comprehension sucks balls.

quote:

---

Why don't you tell the class how "evolution" works? tick...tick...tick...

---

You ready to post that pic yet?

Still waiting.

Tick….. tick…… tick…..


“YoUr DrUnK”

quote:

---

Are you suggesting we are different species?

---

I don't know if it qualifies as all that, but what I said is a fact. Maybe it's an indication that we are far from having a complete picture of 'homo sapien' evolution.

After all, neanderthals were more sophisticated in many ways, much earlier. For example, the oldest known musical instrument is a 60k year old flute found in Spain, which was played by neanderthals.

quote:

---

Aaah -- The TROLL calls out a "troll"?

---

How and when am I "trolling"

You are confused by Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosomal Adam, a reflection that you don't even have the slightest understanding of even basic science.

quote:

---

You are confused by Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosomal Adam, a reflection that you don't even have the slightest understanding of even basic science.

---

quote:

---

Moreover, in staying with you on and presuming this "evolution of ape --> man" will continue forth, is the End Game for Evolutionary Man some kind of "Perfection"? "Godhood perhaps"?

Given the steady evolution from pre-Chimp (and its pre-Ape leap species), would Humans be expected to eventually grow enhanced, bigger craniums and brains? Enhanced / extra ears and noses?

---

It appears you are confusing evolution with intelligent design where there is some end goal of perfection.

Evolution occurs because a trait gives an increased chance of reproduction.

Larger craniums would not be selected for unless women/men found them attractive and they increased the chances of reproduction over normal sized craniums. Same with extra ears and noses.

So nothing, again?

Why am I not surprised?