You've completely misunderstood it again you ****ing imbecile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archosaur You are ****ing embarrassing
So you dismiss "some scientists" as irrelevant when it doesn't fit your argument but their view is valid when it suits you? Thick **** ps You admitted above you didn't know what descendant meant as you used it incorrectly.
Do you actually read the wikki pages? do you know what the mesezoic era was for instance? as with the flies thing, you have taken snippets and presented them as facts now go back read it, and then respond
NO, i undeerstood what you were going on about, although not sure if that is what you initially meant however it seems I may have been right, accidentally of course, but rigt non the less as for the 'some scientists', my position is clear is it not? All this proves is that what you spout is unproven and not even accepted by all the scientist community
Not really it just proves what a mess science is some say dinosaurs became birds, some say birds became dinosaurs yet is there any hardcore evidence? NO because if there was there wouldnt be 'some' in either camp
ST its common knowledge on here that when you have nothing to come back with you resort to abuse Fact is you believe in something that even the scientist community dont accept in its entirety and the examples you cite ar clearly misunderstandings onyour part stop trying to look smart (your words) on a faceless internet forum
FFS, and you claim that you were a former teacher? I've never known such a deranged buffoon on any internet forum, seriously.
I've spanked you about this thread more times than I care to mention. You tried to make a fool of me yesterday and how did that work out for you? http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/146293-Oligamania-what-does-it-mean I've provided evidence of speciation, most of which you don't have the intelligence to understand. The only person who backed you up to any degree was slapme and he actually believes in evolution. And he gave up on you long ago. Every subject you bring to not606 you end up arguing the point on your own with everyone else arguing against you. Why do you think that is? Are you really that arrogant that you believe you're right and everyone else is wrong? As yesterday proved, you cannot even google a word. What does that say about you? I'm not being cruel but you have serious mental problems. That's not me being abusive - that's me being honest.
spanked? how exactly? every example you have given has been countered using your sources, see Dianne Dobb and the fruit flies I still await proof for the original premise, there simply isnt any. The rest of your argument is just avoidance of the real question do you remember my sig from way back? you even called yourself STD. I bring this up because **** happens but most of us move on after a while you are so into 'winning' 'being smarter' etc that you cant discuss ina rational manner hence the resorting to abuse and using your different usernames to make it look like there are people in support of your argument FFS lad grow up
Are you BH or one of ST's other accounts? I ask as you seem intent on not actually posting anything of substance, just abuse and its not like ST doesnt do that to make it look like people agree with him, is it?
It's probably due to you being one seriously thick and demented **** who EVERYONE on here easily disproves every theory or argument you come out with. You're like a hedgehog with nae spines, constantly being pecked at by the crows. In short, you amuse me
A word on Speciation why is it so hard for people to grasp what this means? Dianne Dodds fruit fly experiment, although flawed and artificial speciation, didnt create a completely different animal as in fruit fly to otter. They remained fruit flies, but some were different Darwins observance of finches didnt conclude that they stopped being birds, just that they had adapted to their surroundings. However remaining as birds There are other examples of animals which have seperated for whatever reason and 'adapted' but in essence they remain the same, again see fruit flies and finches or turtles Then we have hybrids, lets say horse and donkey. If anything this is an example of animals that have adapted being able to reproduce on occassion due to a joined 'ancestory,. However they are still fundamentally the same 'species' This part of evolution is accepted by most and I dont have an issue with that
