Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stories)

Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby Seneca on May 13th, 2017, 3:04 pm

patrix, I had sent you a reply by PM. The message is still in my "outbox", I think this means don't know how to read it. So I'll post the info here.
patrix » 09 May 2017, 12:56 wrote:
Seneca » April 22nd, 2017, 10:44 am wrote:
patrix » 21 Apr 2017, 22:45 wrote:
Seneca » April 21st, 2017, 5:41 pm wrote:About the aquatic ape theory: I found a website where it is being criticised http://www.aquaticape.org/. Apparently someone took the effort to verify the sources that were cited by the proponents and found that they were cited incorrectly, and that conflicting data of the same sources was ignored.

Thank you. Very interesting but I find the writers objectiveness and neutrality a bit false however:
Unlike some, I really think of -- and treat -- the AAT/H as a theory

and then
The AAT/H, I hope you've seen, suffers a number of problems that render it incredibly unlikely to be true
http://www.aquaticape.org/summary.html

Can you show where the website is not objective or neutral? Your 2 quotes only show that he seems to have actually considered the theory. That was my conclusion and is why I mentioned this particular website, there are lots of others that just reject the aquatic ape theory without real arguments.

Apologies for a late reply Seneca.
It’s the overall impression I get from reading the site, and the quotes I highlighted stood out in my opinion. I get the general feeling the AAT is non grata in these circles but I’ve noted that David Attenborough have promoted AAT. And since he’s a Nutworker this could be a sign I’m wrong suspecting this is a theory they want to suppress. But I’ve also noted that Attenborough has been heavily criticized by other scientists for promoting the AAT and I’ve not seen much of a rebuttal from his part. So it could be a strawman thing – Have David, who is more of a TV celebrity than a real scientist, promote the theory and then have "real" paleoantropologists take it down (eg. https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... l-thinking ). But maybe I’m just seeing things that aren’t there.

Other things that make the Aquatic Ape Theory compelling to me:
If we don’t want to explain human origin by not explaining it (intelligent design, divine intervention, whatever), we have to try to explain how an animal went from having a normal brain to an exceptionally large one. Sea living mammals like dolphins and killer whales are intelligent so it seems seafood promotes brain development. Our ancestors could have figured out how to catch shellfish and this is what made our brains grow and gradually adopted us to a life near and in the sea.

We are exceptionally good swimmers and divers. We have numerous special abilities in common with sea mammals that enables us to dive http://www.discoveryourdepths.com/about ... physiology

We thrive on a diet high in animal fat. This is becoming common knowledge today and can be seen as proof that we are adopted to a high fat diet like sea mammals with higher cognitive abilities.

Much of our science today is psyence - pseudoscience with the objective to control our behavior. I know from personal experience how harmful a diet low in animal fat can be. When I passed 40 I started to get numerous health problems. Depression, brain fog and chronic fatigue being the most serious. Removing vegetable oils and replacing most of the sugar and starch in my diet with butter and cream has completely turned this around. And there is a rising awareness that a diet low in animal fat promotes diabetes, cancer and dementia to mention a few problems. Connecting our past with the so called humanoid apes can have the objective to make us believe that a vegetarian diet is suitable for humans. Grain based diets is a common denominator in highly hierarchical human societies (Egypt, Inca, Rome) and this may also be a reason this is promoted. I suspect many official diet recommendations, general health advice and medicine has the underlying objective to gradually impair our health and ability to think independently, thus making us healthcare customers and easier to control.

Thanks patrix but this is not the kind of response I was expecting. Like before, you tell me your feelings about the website and who is promoting or opposing the AAT. By what is missing in your answer, concrete textual evidence, I know enough so I will stop bothering you about it. By the way, I am not endorsing the website, people here are able to check it out for themselves.
I agree with HonestlyNow and Flabbergasted that you are quick to make hypotheses, based on a few similarities we share with aquatic mammals. The text you referred to about diving was very interesting. But this is the first sentence: "The mammalian dive reflex is our body's natural response to being in water."
It seems that all mammals have this reflex. So this does nothing to support the AAT.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 422
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby aa5 on May 13th, 2017, 3:32 pm

agraposo » May 13th, 2017, 4:15 am wrote:Very good comments.

I've also heard of studies of sick animals that live longer eating nothing than sick animals being fed with normal diets. This would mean that feeding in a state of sickness is detrimental, rather than helping the body to recover. It's terrifying to see cancer patients in hospitals being fed with normal diets. But proper nutrition is not Big Pharma's business.

Regarding the cholesterol and statins scam, I think it has been discussed in the "Engineering disease" thread, so nothing to add from my part.


I am guessing in the natural world, animals like chimpanzees go through periods of weeks with little or no food. I believe these periods allow their bodies to clean out non-functioning cells & surplus cells, and clean out all sorts of debris that has been piling up throughout their bodies.

With our organization and technology, we are essentially never going through a sustained period with little or no food. So our bodies are never getting that chance to clean out all those dead cells & debris.


Another thing I wonder about is this obsession with protein. I can understand that for a growing child they need a certain amount of protein to match up with the growth demands. But I don't see adults as needing a lot of protein. Like even when you exercise, there is some rebuilding work on the muscles. But I would think the body will recycle amino acids. I have gone through periods of eating little protein, to periods when I intentionally ate a lot of protein, and back again - and I didn't notice a difference in my muscularity.

I also look at animals like chimpanzees or gorillas which eat next to no protein compared to people, yet are actually stronger than people.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 179
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 4:03 am

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby Seneca on May 13th, 2017, 5:34 pm

Hi aa5

I replied here.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 422
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Re2: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin

Postby Seneca on May 13th, 2017, 5:52 pm

Flabbergasted » 10 May 2017, 15:34 wrote:
Seneca wrote:He argues that humans inherited their genetic information both from an animal similar to a chimpanzee and from another mammal.

I won´t carry the argument any further to avoid repetition. The above idea was refuted by dblitz on the first page of the thread:
Ultimately, the question of origins goes right back to the first life. This can't be explained by evolution or hybridisation because both require reproducing organisms to occur.
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 5#p2403192

Selection, hybridization and mutation (whatever mechanisms you claim for them) presuppose the existence of a viable genome to be selected, hybridized or corrupted.

The genome is not unlike a 1000-page novel with well-defined characters and a meaningful and effective plot. Even if blind forces could merge "Hickory, Dickory Dock" and "Baa Baa Black Sheep" into a colossal upgrade, something along Dostoyevsky´s "Brothers Karamazov", modern science remains clueless as to the origin of the genetic information which you believe can be, or has been, commingled.


Actually the above idea was not refuted by dblitz. I agree with dblitz and you that this doesn't explain the origin of life.
But nobody claimed it did.
The first post on this topic was only about the origin of new "species", including humans, not about the origin of life.

I am interested to know if anyone has a better explanation for the coincidence that all the following traits are present in a particular mammal. (Can you guess which mammal?)

    A list of traits distinguishing humans from other primates
    DERMAL FEATURES
    Naked skin (sparse pelage)
    Panniculus adiposus (layer of subcutaneous fat)
    Panniculus carnosus only in face and neck
    In “hairy skin” region:
    - Thick epidermis
    - Crisscrossing congenital lines on epidermis
    - Patterned epidermal-dermal junction
    Large content of elastic fiber in skin
    Thermoregulatory sweating
    Richly vascularized dermis
    Normal host for the human flea (Pulex irritans)
    Dermal melanocytes absent
    Melanocytes present in matrix of hair follicle
    Epidermal lipids contain triglycerides and free fatty acids

    FACIAL FEATURES
    Lightly pigmented eyes common
    Protruding, cartilaginous nose
    Narrow eye opening
    Short, thick upper lip
    Philtrum/cleft lip
    Glabrous mucous membrane bordering lips
    Eyebrows
    Heavy eyelashes
    Earlobes

    FEATURES RELATING TO BIPEDALITY
    Short, dorsal spines on first six cervical vertebrae
    Seventh cervical vertebrae:
    - long dorsal spine
    - transverse foramens
    Fewer floating and more non-floating ribs
    More lumbar vertebrae
    Fewer sacral vertebrae
    More coccygeal vertebrae (long “tail bone”)
    Centralized spine
    Short pelvis relative to body length
    Sides of pelvis turn forward
    Sharp lumbo-sacral promontory
    Massive gluteal muscles
    Curved sacrum with short dorsal spines
    Hind limbs longer than forelimbs
    Femur:
    - Condyles equal in size
    - Knock-kneed
    - Elliptical condyles
    - Deep intercondylar notch at lower end of femur
    - Deep patellar groove with high lateral lip
    - Crescent-shaped lateral meniscus with two tibial insertions
    Short malleolus medialis
    Talus suited strictly for extension and flexion of the foot
    Long calcaneus relative to foot (metatarsal) length
    Short digits (relative to chimpanzee)
    Terminal phalanges blunt (ungual tuberosities)
    Narrow pelvic outlet

    ORGANS
    Diverticulum at cardiac end of stomach
    Valves of Kerkring present in small intestines
    Mesenteric arterial arcades
    Multipyramidal kidneys
    Heart auricles level
    Tricuspid valve of heart
    Laryngeal sacs absent
    Vocal ligaments
    Prostate encircles urethra
    Bulbo-urethral glands present
    Os penis (baculum) absent.
    Hymen
    Absence of periodic sexual swellings in female
    Ischial callosities absent
    Nipples low on chest
    Bicornuate uterus (occasionally present in humans)
    Labia majora

    CRANIAL FEATURES
    Brain lobes: frontal and temporal prominent
    Thermoregulatory venous plexuses
    Well-developed system of emissary veins
    Enlarged nasal bones
    Divergent eyes (interior of orbit visible from side)
    Styloid process
    Large occipital condyles
    Primitive premolar
    Large, blunt-cusped (bunodont) molars
    Thick tooth enamel
    Helical chewing

    OTHER TRAITS
    Nocturnal activity
    Particular about place of defecation
    Good swimmer, no fear of water
    Extended male copulation time
    Female orgasm
    Short menstrual cycle
    Snuggling
    Tears
    Alcoholism
    Terrestrialism (Non-arboreal)
    Able to exploit a wide range of environments and foods
    Heart attack
    Atherosclerosis
    Cancer (melanoma)

source: http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 422
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Re2: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin

Postby agraposo on May 13th, 2017, 9:33 pm

Seneca » 13 May 2017, 18:52 wrote:
I am interested to know if anyone has a better explanation for the coincidence that all the following traits are present in a particular mammal. (Can you guess which mammal?)

    A list of traits distinguishing humans from other primates
    DERMAL FEATURES
    Naked skin (sparse pelage)
    Panniculus adiposus (layer of subcutaneous fat)
    Panniculus carnosus only in face and neck
    In “hairy skin” region:
    - Thick epidermis
    - Crisscrossing congenital lines on epidermis
    - Patterned epidermal-dermal junction
    Large content of elastic fiber in skin
    Thermoregulatory sweating
    Richly vascularized dermis
    Normal host for the human flea (Pulex irritans)
    Dermal melanocytes absent
    Melanocytes present in matrix of hair follicle
    Epidermal lipids contain triglycerides and free fatty acids

    FACIAL FEATURES
    Lightly pigmented eyes common
    Protruding, cartilaginous nose
    Narrow eye opening
    Short, thick upper lip
    Philtrum/cleft lip
    Glabrous mucous membrane bordering lips
    Eyebrows
    Heavy eyelashes
    Earlobes

    FEATURES RELATING TO BIPEDALITY
    Short, dorsal spines on first six cervical vertebrae
    Seventh cervical vertebrae:
    - long dorsal spine
    - transverse foramens
    Fewer floating and more non-floating ribs
    More lumbar vertebrae
    Fewer sacral vertebrae
    More coccygeal vertebrae (long “tail bone”)
    Centralized spine
    Short pelvis relative to body length
    Sides of pelvis turn forward
    Sharp lumbo-sacral promontory
    Massive gluteal muscles
    Curved sacrum with short dorsal spines
    Hind limbs longer than forelimbs
    Femur:
    - Condyles equal in size
    - Knock-kneed
    - Elliptical condyles
    - Deep intercondylar notch at lower end of femur
    - Deep patellar groove with high lateral lip
    - Crescent-shaped lateral meniscus with two tibial insertions
    Short malleolus medialis
    Talus suited strictly for extension and flexion of the foot
    Long calcaneus relative to foot (metatarsal) length
    Short digits (relative to chimpanzee)
    Terminal phalanges blunt (ungual tuberosities)
    Narrow pelvic outlet

    ORGANS
    Diverticulum at cardiac end of stomach
    Valves of Kerkring present in small intestines
    Mesenteric arterial arcades
    Multipyramidal kidneys
    Heart auricles level
    Tricuspid valve of heart
    Laryngeal sacs absent
    Vocal ligaments
    Prostate encircles urethra
    Bulbo-urethral glands present
    Os penis (baculum) absent.
    Hymen
    Absence of periodic sexual swellings in female
    Ischial callosities absent
    Nipples low on chest
    Bicornuate uterus (occasionally present in humans)
    Labia majora

    CRANIAL FEATURES
    Brain lobes: frontal and temporal prominent
    Thermoregulatory venous plexuses
    Well-developed system of emissary veins
    Enlarged nasal bones
    Divergent eyes (interior of orbit visible from side)
    Styloid process
    Large occipital condyles
    Primitive premolar
    Large, blunt-cusped (bunodont) molars
    Thick tooth enamel
    Helical chewing

    OTHER TRAITS
    Nocturnal activity
    Particular about place of defecation
    Good swimmer, no fear of water
    Extended male copulation time
    Female orgasm
    Short menstrual cycle
    Snuggling
    Tears
    Alcoholism
    Terrestrialism (Non-arboreal)
    Able to exploit a wide range of environments and foods
    Heart attack
    Atherosclerosis
    Cancer (melanoma)

source: http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html


As I said before,

agraposo » 13 May 2017, 01:31 wrote:I'm a bit late into this debate, but, have you realized that Eugene McCarthy's ridiculous theory says that humans parents are the chimpanzee and ... the pig! ?

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2403368#p2403368

Even Darwin in his Origin of Species admits that hybridism generally leads to sterility, and that means death and extinction. And I suppose someone with time and effort can make a similar list of coincidences between a human and, let's say, a cow. I mean, that list is arbitrary and pointless: naked skin?, eyebrows?, nocturnal activity?, tears?, ... this is why our parent is the pig? Hilarious.
agraposo
Member
 
Posts: 241
Joined: June 10th, 2011, 10:48 pm

Re: Re2: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin

Postby Seneca on May 13th, 2017, 10:04 pm

agraposo » 13 May 2017, 22:33 wrote:As I said before,

agraposo » 13 May 2017, 01:31 wrote:I'm a bit late into this debate, but, have you realized that Eugene McCarthy's ridiculous theory says that humans parents are the chimpanzee and ... the pig! ?

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2403368#p2403368

Even Darwin in his Origin of Species admits that hybridism generally leads to sterility, and that means death and extinction. And I suppose someone with time and effort can make a similar list of coincidences between a human and, let's say, a cow. I mean, that list is arbitrary and pointless: naked skin?, eyebrows?, nocturnal activity?, tears?, ... this is why our parent is the pig? Hilarious.


I think you misunderstand the point. It is not a list of coincidences between a human and another animal. It is a list of differences between humans and chimpanzees. And yes this includes naked skin, eyebrows, nocturnal activity and tears. And it happens that the common pig seems to possess all these traits as well. If somebody can find another animal that has even half of these traits I would be very happy, but I don't think there isn't.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 422
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby patrix on May 14th, 2017, 2:29 am

Seneca » May 13th, 2017, 3:04 pm wrote:patrix, I had sent you a reply by PM. The message is still in my "outbox", I think this means don't know how to read it. So I'll post the info here.
Thanks patrix but this is not the kind of response I was expecting. Like before, you tell me your feelings about the website and who is promoting or opposing the AAT. By what is missing in your answer, concrete textual evidence, I know enough so I will stop bothering you about it. By the way, I am not endorsing the website, people here are able to check it out for themselves.
I agree with HonestlyNow and Flabbergasted that you are quick to make hypotheses, based on a few similarities we share with aquatic mammals. The text you referred to about diving was very interesting. But this is the first sentence: "The mammalian dive reflex is our body's natural response to being in water."
It seems that all mammals have this reflex. So this does nothing to support the AAT.

Hi Seneca. Sorry about that. I've replied to you now but I guess the reply is much similar to the previous one. Main point being I'm not clear about what your definition of "concrete textual evidence" is. One thing I noticed now that I'm afraid I don't see the logic in is the problem you have with that the first sentence of that page stated that all mammals have a dive reflex. So does that invalidate the rest of the claims in your opinion? Just curious. To me it's a bit like saying I don't think this page supports the hypothesis that zebras and horses are related because the first statement is that both zebras and horses walk on four legs. Please PM me about it.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 117
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am

Re: Re2: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin

Postby agraposo on May 15th, 2017, 11:19 am

Seneca » 13 May 2017, 23:04 wrote:I think you misunderstand the point. It is not a list of coincidences between a human and another animal. It is a list of differences between humans and chimpanzees. And yes this includes naked skin, eyebrows, nocturnal activity and tears. And it happens that the common pig seems to possess all these traits as well. If somebody can find another animal that has even half of these traits I would be very happy, but I don't think there isn't.

I don't think that trait list is enough to conclude that the human parent is the pig. With the same logic, the zebra's parents would be the horse and the tiger, because the horse has not stripes, and the tiger has stripes. This is a simplistic example, but I hope you understand my point.

Besides, the assumptions made by the macroevolution.net site author, that humans are hybrids and that the chimpanzee is one of the parents, can be false, as the same author says. If those assumptions are false, then the whole site would be full of nonsense.

To support that humans are hybrids, he thinks that the human species is somewhat infertile, and that the human sperm is abnormal. Really? With some billions of people populating the planet?

And that the chimpanzee is our ancestor, maybe in Darwin's times that idea was popular, but not today, even among scientists.

So, my conclusion is that both hypotheses are false, and that the site is full of nonsense. The question is why the site's author dedicates so much effort to spread false science.
agraposo
Member
 
Posts: 241
Joined: June 10th, 2011, 10:48 pm

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby dblitz on May 15th, 2017, 9:08 pm

Hybridisation doesn't work because you need more than one species to make a new one, so where do the first two different species come from? They can't come from hybridisation can they?. Can't work.
dblitz
Member
 
Posts: 226
Joined: April 27th, 2013, 3:32 am

Re: Re2: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin

Postby Seneca on May 15th, 2017, 9:31 pm

agraposo » 15 May 2017, 12:19 wrote:
Seneca » 13 May 2017, 23:04 wrote:I think you misunderstand the point. It is not a list of coincidences between a human and another animal. It is a list of differences between humans and chimpanzees. And yes this includes naked skin, eyebrows, nocturnal activity and tears. And it happens that the common pig seems to possess all these traits as well. If somebody can find another animal that has even half of these traits I would be very happy, but I don't think there isn't.

I don't think that trait list is enough to conclude that the human parent is the pig. With the same logic, the zebra's parents would be the horse and the tiger, because the horse has not stripes, and the tiger has stripes. This is a simplistic example, but I hope you understand my point.

This seems a strawman argument. You don't give any arguments, you just give a very bad analogy and then draw conclusions about that.
Besides, the assumptions made by the macroevolution.net site author, that humans are hybrids and that the chimpanzee is one of the parents, can be false, as the same author says. If those assumptions are false, then the whole site would be full of nonsense.
Obviously, his assumptions can be false. That is how science works. You make a hypothesis and then see if you or someone else can falsify it. Or if someone can come up with an explanation that fits the data even better.
Even id this turns out wrong, there are many other interesting facts and hypothesis on the website, as I have tried to show earlier.
To support that humans are hybrids, he thinks that the human species is somewhat infertile, and that the human sperm is abnormal. Really? With some billions of people populating the planet?

Yes really. There is a very wide range between infertility and normal infertility and beyond. If there is anything that nature will select against it will be low fertility or infertility. In other words it is hard to pass this trait on to the next generations. Yet, after so many human generations, for example in Sweden, 10% of couples who want children are infertile. I think that is significant but there can be other causes.

And that the chimpanzee is our ancestor, maybe in Darwin's times that idea was popular, but not today, even among scientists.

What scientists are you talking about? It is definitely still very popular, although some prefer the gorilla or the orangutang for some reason. Is that what you mean?
So, my conclusion is that both hypotheses are false, and that the site is full of nonsense. The question is why the site's author dedicates so much effort to spread false science.

You haven't given a better explanation, for example for the origin of humans.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 422
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby Seneca on May 15th, 2017, 9:33 pm

dblitz » 15 May 2017, 22:08 wrote:Hybridisation doesn't work because you need more than one species to make a new one, so where do the first two different species come from? They can't come from hybridisation can they?. Can't work.

Hybridisation doesn't work? Then where do mules come from? or Ligers? or Grapefruit? Or bread wheat? Or peppermint?
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 422
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stor

Postby dblitz on May 15th, 2017, 10:14 pm

I mean it cant work as the origin of species. The process requires multiple species while trying to explain multiple species. Hope that's clearer.
dblitz
Member
 
Posts: 226
Joined: April 27th, 2013, 3:32 am

Re: Re2: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin

Postby agraposo on May 16th, 2017, 2:28 am

Seneca » 15 May 2017, 22:31 wrote:
agraposo » 15 May 2017, 12:19 wrote:And that the chimpanzee is our ancestor, maybe in Darwin's times that idea was popular, but not today, even among scientists.

What scientists are you talking about? It is definitely still very popular, although some prefer the gorilla or the orangutang for some reason. Is that what you mean?

Mainstream science states that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, now extinct, not that humans evolved from any current species of ape. The chimpanzee is an extant species, if it is our parent, it should be easy to mate a pig and a chimpanzee right now to produce a human. Do you know if this has been tested?
agraposo
Member
 
Posts: 241
Joined: June 10th, 2011, 10:48 pm

Re: Re2: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin

Postby Seneca on May 16th, 2017, 6:40 am

agraposo » 16 May 2017, 03:28 wrote:
Seneca » 15 May 2017, 22:31 wrote:
agraposo » 15 May 2017, 12:19 wrote:And that the chimpanzee is our ancestor, maybe in Darwin's times that idea was popular, but not today, even among scientists.

What scientists are you talking about? It is definitely still very popular, although some prefer the gorilla or the orangutang for some reason. Is that what you mean?

Mainstream science states that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, now extinct, not that humans evolved from any current species of ape. The chimpanzee is an extant species, if it is our parent, it should be easy to mate a pig and a chimpanzee right now to produce a human. Do you know if this has been tested?

Yes you are right. Mainstream science proposes that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. I forgot about that. BTW no fossil has ever been found of this common ancestor, not even a faked one.

As far as I know of this has not been tested and McCarthy has strong ethical objections, he doesn't want to have anything to do with it. To be clear, the hypothesis is not that the first human was the offspring of a chimpanzee and a pig. But that this first hybrid back-crossed with chimpanzees for a few generation which commonly increases fertility.
Last edited by Seneca on May 16th, 2017, 10:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 422
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Re2: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin

Postby agraposo on May 16th, 2017, 9:26 am

Seneca » 16 May 2017, 07:40 wrote:BTW no fossil has ever been found of this species, not even a faked one.

Yes!. And is interesting to note that some authors consider hybridization as a possibility genetically speaking. Not even remotely I study nothing related with genetics, as there is so much deception, for example in virology (e.g. AIDS, hepatitis) or biopharmaceuticals (e.g. monoclonal antibodies). But that's a discussion for another topic!
agraposo
Member
 
Posts: 241
Joined: June 10th, 2011, 10:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General World Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests