Re: In the News: 'Expelled' Exposes Plight of Darwin Doubters

On Nov 30, 7:57 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Organisms do not transmogrify.

This contradicts Darwin he used the "transmutation" which means "morph
into". Are you saying Darwin was wrong?

The common ancestor of mammals
and modern fish would have been a vertebrate, but neither modern-type
fish nor mammal.

Obviously not, for by hypothesis there wasn't a modern fish to begin
with it had to transform from some prior species. And can we cut this
"common ancestor" weasel term. This is deliberate deception to obscure
that the theory is the transmutation or transformation of a species
into another species such as a monkey/ape/bonobo/simian or whatever
vernacular you want to use for something that hanged from a tree by
its tail and showed its balls for the monkey babes.

For those of you who can't believe what you are reading in this thread
it is actually an outflow of a ground breaking thread that clarified
much of the confusion surrounding this nonsense term "common ancestor"
that ran for three months and had over 3300 replies. I started the
thread here http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3b7d9b411887c7b5/f20412f90f39e7f7#f20412f90f39e7f7
You should read the posts by UC or Uraniumcommittee. The "common
ancestor" term is blatant deceit, there are millions of evolutionists
out there who have no idea what their intent is with the term. It
actually arose to counter Bishop Wilberforce's mocking of materialists
believing their daddy was an ape.

Lets take for example the passage below:
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:mkEF-YniSyIJ:www.bio.ilstu.edu/Armstrong/misconceptions.doc+common+ancestor+monkey+misconception+%22absurd%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=za
Humans have monkeys for ancestors.
"..This demonstrates a conceptual misunderstanding. About 5 million
years ago the great apes and humans had a common ancestor. This
organism would not be either ape or human. About 50 million years ago
the great ape-human lineage had a common ancestry with monkeys, but
that ancestor was neither human, ape, or monkey. And of course if you
don't think so, then you must explain why humans share so many
features and so much of their genetic heritage with other primates.
Humans have a 99% genetic similarity to chimpanzees..."

Note how the author J.E. Armstrong contradicts the authors in our
present thread. If the ancestor was neither
ape, human or monkey then what was it then? What would this common
ancestor have looked like to an observer back then - like a simian
perhaps to use the vernacular.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Human evolutionary origins for Zorg
    ... common ancestor and that people ... there's a serious difference between saying evolution ... what we know of humans. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Human evolutionary origins for Zorg
    ... common ancestor and that people ... what we know of humans. ... The genetic characteristics which now usually come from DNA ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Defense requested
    ... >>> common ancestor? ... >>> characteristics of the ancestor is passed down to offspring, ... > variations within a species, ... humans, chimps, and gorillas (which are usually placed in three separate ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: In the News: Expelled Exposes Plight of Darwin Doubters
    ... its tail and showed its balls for the monkey babes. ... much of the confusion surrounding this nonsense term "common ancestor" ... Humans have monkeys for ancestors. ... years ago the great apes and humans had a common ancestor. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: In the News: Expelled Exposes Plight of Darwin Doubters
    ... justification for excluding us from the "monkey" clade? ... As humans are apes, how can an ape turn into a human? ... portion of our common ancestor with any other species has turned into us ...
    (talk.origins)