According to science, how does a new species develop?

[Marion Morrison]

No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.

We had 5 main species develop early in our planets history. You are correct no new species have developed since then. So what? What do you think that proves?



Would you like to make Marsupials another species? Can a Marsupial fuck a dog and have a baby?

Of course you were there to document this, right?

That's what my dad says when I try to explain science to him. He gets loud and says, "WERE THEY THERE? WERE YOU THERE?"

Shut up you stupid old man. LOL

Did OJ kill his wife?

No. If he did, he had just cause, now fuck off, faggot.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.

LOL

Sorry, old poot, every species has evolved from a predecessor, going back more than three billion years

 

[Syriusly]

No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.

We had 5 main species develop early in our planets history. You are correct no new species have developed since then. So what? What do you think that proves?



Would you like to make Marsupials another species? Can a Marsupial fuck a dog and have a baby?

Those are not species.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, if we're looking at atheist science

As if there is any such thing...so mindnumbingly stupid....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.

Well, you are a fool who knows less than nothing about any of this, and all of the evidence shows you are wrong.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course you were there to document this, right?

What an absurd standard. Damn you are stupid.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Of course you were there to document this, right?

What an absurd standard. Damn you are stupid.

Au contraire, shortbus rider.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course you were there to document this, right?

What an absurd standard. Damn you are stupid.

Au contraire, shortbus rider.

Well, it appears you know more about french than you do about evolution, scrotum licker....

You know, 11-year olds would laugh at your science knowledge. Evolution is a fact. You are a whiner. Another fact.

 

[james bond]

And as a demonstration of 'facts' you have a cartoon from a Christianist website?
Human Family Tree

LOL How about we go to a real source- like the Smithsonian
View attachment 186131

LOL is right. You accuse me of using biased sources when you post the Smithsonian which is a biased website for evos and full of atheist scientists.

Smithsonian Exhibition—Deception and Atheism

Did you really go to Chimp U? You also posted a link from SA that favors my arguments. It was ROTFL hilarious. You should be the one to believe that humans came from dinosaurs.

 

[Syriusly]

And as a demonstration of 'facts' you have a cartoon from a Christianist website?
Human Family Tree

LOL How about we go to a real source- like the Smithsonian
View attachment 186131

LOL is right. You accuse me of using biased sources when you post the Smithsonian which is a biased website for evos and full of atheist scientists.

Smithsonian Exhibition—Deception and Atheism

Did you really go to Chimp U? You also posted a link from SA that favors my arguments. It was ROTFL hilarious. You should be the one to believe that humans came from dinosaurs.

Yes- I dare use a site known for being 'biased' towards science.

You believe whacky Christianist cartoons because.

I recognize the science that one of most respective scientific institutions presents.

But then again- you believe in fairies in the sky and that plants came to life- before we had a sun.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Smithsonian which is a biased website for evos and full of atheist scientists.

Haha...you embarrass yourself....

Just let this idiot talk.

 

[james bond]

No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.

Since the dawn of time? What year is that?

P.S. We are all related. Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up

>>s: P.S. We are all related. Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up<<

Atheists are wrong again. First, those drawings are just for very early stages. They change dramatically afterward, so it's a bogus argument.

Second, aren't those bushes of life? We got one for human. Another for bird. Another for reptile. Another for amphibian. Another for fish. It doesn't means they are related. Where do you get that?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.

Since the dawn of time? What year is that?

P.S. We are all related. Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up

>>s: P.S. We are all related. Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up<<

Atheists are wrong again. First, those drawings are just for very early stages. They change dramatically afterward, so it's a bogus argument.

Second, aren't those bushes of life? We got one for human. Another for bird. Another for reptile. Another for amphibian. Another for fish. It doesn't means they are related. Where do you get that?

Of course, in what the rest of us call, "reality", the similarity of embryos is strong circumstantial evidence for evolution, with embryology and genetics completely sealing the deal with irrefutable, empirical evidence.

Scientists have mountains of mutually supportive evidence...nutball here ^^ has nothing but his gut feelings and a bronze age book of fairy tales.

Gee, tough call...

 

[Syriusly]

No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.

Since the dawn of time? What year is that?

P.S. We are all related. Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up

>>s: P.S. We are all related. Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up<<

Atheists are wrong again. First, those drawings are just for very early stages. They change dramatically afterward, so it's a bogus argument.

Second, aren't those bushes of life? We got one for human. Another for bird. Another for reptile. Another for amphibian. Another for fish. It doesn't means they are related. Where do you get that?

LOL what is a 'bush of life'? Another Christianist invention.

"Trees of Life" are essentially metaphors- they are graphical representations in general of how life it related to each other.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Of course you were there to document this, right?

What an absurd standard. Damn you are stupid.

Au contraire, shortbus rider.

Well, it appears you know more about french than you do about evolution, scrotum licker....

You know, 11-year olds would laugh at your science knowledge. Evolution is a fact. You are a whiner. Another fact.

Evolution is a theory that is unproven, fuzznuts. Prove me wrong.
Good luck with that.

Oh! I almost forgot! Go Fuck yourself, stupid faggot fuck!

 

[Syriusly]

Of course you were there to document this, right?

What an absurd standard. Damn you are stupid.

Au contraire, shortbus rider.

Well, it appears you know more about french than you do about evolution, scrotum licker....

You know, 11-year olds would laugh at your science knowledge. Evolution is a fact. You are a whiner. Another fact.

Evolution is a theory that is unproven, fuzznuts. Prove me wrong.
Good luck with that.

Oh! I almost forgot! Go Fuck yourself, stupid faggot fuck!

Always fascinating to hear from the Donkey fucking Christianists.

 

[james bond]

No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.

Since the dawn of time? What year is that?

P.S. We are all related. Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up

>>s: P.S. We are all related. Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up<<

Atheists are wrong again. First, those drawings are just for very early stages. They change dramatically afterward, so it's a bogus argument.

Second, aren't those bushes of life? We got one for human. Another for bird. Another for reptile. Another for amphibian. Another for fish. It doesn't means they are related. Where do you get that?

LOL what is a 'bush of life'? Another Christianist invention.

"Trees of Life" are essentially metaphors- they are graphical representations in general of how life it related to each other.

Tree of life is not a metaphor. More stuff you got in your head from Chimp U. It's phylogeny and an hypothesis about relationships among organisms.

No. Bush of life is phylogeny, too, but different than the ToL hypothesis. It's relatively new.

The Tree of Life may be more like a bush

As for Lucy and the rest, It may be a drawing, but it does show the FRAUD OF EVOS which you have ignored and cannot debunk.

Before I forget, here's the Prof. C. Owen Lovejoy argument for apes evolved from humans on the Kent State U official website. Read it and weep sucker.

Professor: Man Did Not Evolve From Chimpanzee-like Apes | Kent State University

 

[Marion Morrison]

Of course you were there to document this, right?

What an absurd standard. Damn you are stupid.

Au contraire, shortbus rider.

Well, it appears you know more about french than you do about evolution, scrotum licker....

You know, 11-year olds would laugh at your science knowledge. Evolution is a fact. You are a whiner. Another fact.

Evolution is a theory that is unproven, fuzznuts. Prove me wrong.
Good luck with that.

Oh! I almost forgot! Go Fuck yourself, stupid faggot fuck!

Always fascinating to hear from the Donkey fucking Christianists.

Funny, I've never been to Tijuana, yet your passport says you've been there 7x, sup?

PS: You put forth bullshit.

 

[james bond]

No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.

We had 5 main species develop early in our planets history. You are correct no new species have developed since then. So what? What do you think that proves?



Would you like to make Marsupials another species? Can a Marsupial fuck a dog and have a baby?

Those are not species.

Taxonomy fail for sealybobo. My evo website uses the cladistic taxinomy based on common ancestor. Still trying to get a handle on it.

 

[james bond]

You notice sealybobo never answered my question of where he got the above graphic. Ernst Haeckl was involved in some controversy as

"He became convinced he had discovered the most basic law of evolution: “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” or the development of an embryo (ontogeny) is a speeded-up replay of the evolution of the species (phylogeny). It was an enormously influential idea, utilized by both Darwin and Huxley, who were impressed with Haeckel’s detailed illustrations comparing development in various animals and man. In their earlier stages, according to Haeckel’s drawings, pigeons, dogs and humans looked identical.

This recapitulation theory enjoyed a tremendous vogue for a few decades, but eventually proved too vague to be of much use in research. Before it was discredited, however, it shaped scientific thought of the period, including the psychoanalytic theories of Sigmund Freud.

When critics brought charges of extensive retouching and outrageous “fudging” in his famous embryo illustrations, Haeckel replied he was only trying to make them more accurate than the faulty specimens on which they were based.8"

Michael K. Richardson (department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, St. George’s Hospital Medial School, London, United Kingdom) co-authored a paper that appeared in Research News, 5 September 1997, page 1435. That paper produced such a reaction that he wrote a letter to Science in which he (and the other five co-authors from four other countries) attempted to defend both their belief in evolution and their criticism of Haeckel. In that letter they said,

"Unfortunately Haeckel was overzealous. When we compared his drawings with real embryos, we found that he showed many details incorrectly. He did not show significant differences between species, even though his theories allowed for embryonic variation. …We therefore show here a more accurate representation of vertebrate embryos at three arbitrary stages, including the approximate stage (fig. 1, column 3), which Haeckel showed to be identical. 9 [The letter showed photographs of human, bat, cat, possum, chicken, snake, hellbender, axoloti, lungfish, salmon, gar, dogfish, and lamprey embryos, all of which look remarkably different.]"

8 Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, (1990) pages 205 - 206 (Ev+)
9 Richardson, et al., Science, Vol. 280, 15 May 1998, “Haeckel, Embryos, and Evolution” page 983. (Ev)"

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i7f.htm#footnote8

Heh. More evo shenanigans. Syriusly you criticize the evo drawings apes to man, but it didn't use fake science like Ernst Haeckel.