Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Pterosaur Fossil Forces Re-think of Standard Evolution
ICR News ^ | October 21, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

Posted on 10/21/2009 8:28:27 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Charles Darwin admitted that the sudden appearance of fully formed creatures in fossil deposits was one of the biggest problems with his hypothesis that nature generated living creatures through natural selection. His vision of organisms gradually morphing from one kind to another over vast time spans predicted that most fossils should reflect that steady grading from one basic body plan to another.

Some scientists believe they have found a creature that bridges one of the many gaps in the fossil record, although it requires a significant reworking of evolutionary theory. The crow-sized pterosaur fossil from China has been named Darwinopterus in honor of the “year of Darwin.” This is certainly ironic, considering the fact that the creature had none of the partially graded features that would show transition from one to the other of the two major pterosaur types. Instead, it demonstrated a unique mosaic of fully functional body parts...

(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Texas; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: antiscienceevos; belongsinreligion; bible; catholic; china; christian; creation; darwiniacs; evangelical; evolution; evoreligion; genesis; godsgravesglyphs; intelligentdesign; notasciencetopic; paleontology; propellerbeanie; protestant; science; templeofdarwin

1 posted on 10/21/2009 8:28:28 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 10/21/2009 8:33:17 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Looks like they don’t have all the answers yet!


3 posted on 10/21/2009 8:33:28 AM PDT by Leftism is Mentally Deranged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

The mosaic pattern (think Platypus) instead of gradualistic intermediates is significant even within creationary thinking. I would actually expect more gradation in nature, as much as allowable by design constraints. Instead we seem to have a more discrete, modular nature of living forms. It would be interesting to explore the degree to which this is driven by design constraints, and the degree to which it is presumably due to other factors (such as negating any evolutionary explanation).


4 posted on 10/21/2009 8:34:58 AM PDT by Liberty1970 (Democrats are not in control. God is. And Thank God for that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


5 posted on 10/21/2009 8:41:38 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"Charles Darwin admitted that the sudden appearance of fully formed creatures in fossil deposits was one of the biggest problems with his hypothesis that nature generated living creatures through natural selection."

What a preposterous position upon which to attempt to refute Darwin. Do you even read this crap before you post it?

This condition can only be satisfied when ALL fossil evidence is available. Obviously no one can make the assertion that no fossil remains undiscovered and that a conclusion can now be made that the Darwinopterus "suddenly" and "spontaneously" appeared.

6 posted on 10/21/2009 8:43:21 AM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Heard Dawkins last night pretending to understand evolution at the molecular level......

You see, if one pretends to have answers derived from such a “sophisticated position”, it invents a theoretical barrier for public debate.

The fact is they have no such understanding and the “scientific logic” does NOT hold together.

7 posted on 10/21/2009 8:45:16 AM PDT by G Larry (DNC is comprised of REGRESSIVES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
GGG - a question (pardon me if you have already answered it).

Is it necessary to believe in a young earth creation in order to be saved?

8 posted on 10/21/2009 8:49:46 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (If we can't get good government, then I want as little government as possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970

Meaning that you would have thought that God would have created a more blended creation, or that the capacity for change within the created kinds would make it look more blended and gradualistic?...I’m not sure I follow you here.


9 posted on 10/21/2009 8:51:52 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

No.


10 posted on 10/21/2009 8:52:38 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

Which is why Richard Dawkins is becoming a laughingstock, even among evolutionists.


11 posted on 10/21/2009 8:54:38 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

LOL...the more fossils they find, the worse it gets for darwood’s evo-religous creation myth. Do your homework for a change.


12 posted on 10/21/2009 8:55:53 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Which is why Richard Dawkins is becoming a laughingstock, even among evolutionists.

It is not nor has it ever been about 'humans'. What is and will be protected is the system of 'scientific methodology'. But as with any doctrine the person that gains power to practice the system of 'scientific methodology' is where the harm is done.

IF evolutionist want to practice their system fine well and have at it. The harm was introduced to all of humanity when they got stature handed to them by the Supremes as the law of the land, and thus taxpayers have been required, even without representation to pay for their system...

Just wait a few years from now when BamaKennedy puts his touch on this system of 'scientific methodology', and what has been accepted as fittest to survive will be turned on its collective head. Some people are going to have to have their literal noses rubbed in that system before they will smell the smell.

13 posted on 10/21/2009 9:02:56 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Seems to me he has. It is you who insists on misinterpreting information to support your mistakenly held beliefs.


14 posted on 10/21/2009 9:03:41 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Leftism is Mentally Deranged

“Looks like they don’t have all the answers yet!”

What? Do you have any real understanding of science at all? Statements such as yours provide further reinforcement to the fact that creation “science” is nothing of the kind (not that any such additional evidence was necessary, of course).

Faith and science are separate and coexist nicely. When an article of faith is used as the presumed end state in scientific inquiry, however, the process that results is not science, but rationalization. Without falsification, it is instead the creation rationalizers who have all the answers, as evidenced by the last line from the article:

“See? Just like it says in Genesis! The End.”

The author, Brian Thomas MS*, remains a shameless rationalizer, easily contradicted by even the least prepared thinking person.


15 posted on 10/21/2009 9:03:47 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
You knew it had to happen eventually.....


16 posted on 10/21/2009 9:03:52 AM PDT by scoobysnak71 (Just a National Security Threat, trying to get a nut.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

As usual, they have cherry-picked one sentence upon which to base their claims against evolution. Go to G-Cube’s link, scroll to the bottom, click on the first link provided for the real story.


17 posted on 10/21/2009 9:04:57 AM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Charles Darwin admitted that the sudden appearance of fully formed creatures in fossil deposits was one of the biggest problems with his hypothesis that nature generated living creatures through natural selection. His vision of organisms gradually morphing from one kind to another over vast time spans predicted that most fossils should reflect that steady grading from one basic body plan to another.

That makes sense because we don't see living things popping up out of nowhere, created by God or anyone else.

18 posted on 10/21/2009 9:12:59 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
There is a school of thought in Platonism that says that the Creator would fill all morphospace. I don't understand it terribly well, but the gist of it is that if God loves variety, He would have created all possible forms of life - that there would be no empty but possible niches of living forms.

Now, Platonism is not Christianity, but various Christian thinkers have explored it and think it may be on to something. I don't think there is any reason to suppose God 'had' to fill all morphospace, but it does seem apparent that God produced a wonderful variety of life and delighted in it. If this intuition is correct, we should expect to see 'intermediates' insofar as present life is a subset (due to extinctions) of the original created variety of life. The pattern would not match evolutionism closely, but would superficially look like it if you did not attempt to fit the intermediates into a specific evolutionary framework.

(Attempts to do so would tend to fail, leading to lineages filled with question marks and competing lineages based on conflicting criteria - in other words, just what the evolutionary community is faced with today.)

19 posted on 10/21/2009 9:28:43 AM PDT by Liberty1970 (Democrats are not in control. God is. And Thank God for that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
Sorry to intrude, Notary Sojac.

I hope that you don't mind.

I have a question for you:

Jesus told the pharisees that they didn't't believe what He was saying because they didn't believe what Moses wrote about Him.

What did Moses write about Jesus? And...what didn't the pharisees believe in regard to Mose's writing about Jesus?

20 posted on 10/21/2009 9:28:45 AM PDT by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Oooo....more lyin' Brian Thomas MS* tripe.

Instead of showing the expected transitional attributes, Darwinopterus was a mosaic of fully formed features woven into a whole and functional animal, now presumed extinct.

Lyin' Brian here cannot even accept that these animals are extinct. Imagine that...

However, there remains no empirical evidence for a process like this occurring today

That's right, Lyin' Brian Thomas MS*.....if we cannot actually witness something in real time that takes eons to occur....it doesn't exist. BUT, Man walked the Earth with 100+ species of large meat eating dinosaurs....right?

And without such gradual changes, the creation of discrete forms must be considered as a superior origins explanation.

False conclusion, lyin' Brian.

Of course, lyin Brian Thomas MS* thinks this is an erotic nude artistic recreation.....turns him on....


21 posted on 10/21/2009 9:30:31 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with vegetarian T. rex within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"LOL...the more fossils they find, the worse it gets for darwood’s evo-religous creation myth. Do your homework for a change."

Actually the exact opposite is true. The greater the variation (sigma) in any population the greater the probability for unanticipated or unpredicted (rogue) outcomes. I would recommend you take a basic course in probability and statistics before "Laughing Out Loud".

22 posted on 10/21/2009 10:19:45 AM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry
Certainly doesn't look she/it has been stomped by hippos, now does it?
23 posted on 10/21/2009 10:28:04 AM PDT by BlueDragon (there is no such thing as a "true" compass, all are subject to bo th variation & deviation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
fully formed creatures

This is one of those creationist phrases that just strikes me as ignorant. What does it mean? What is a non fully formed creature and why do they expect to find fossils of them?
24 posted on 10/21/2009 10:49:50 AM PDT by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
I try to stay away from the circular reasoning in evo threads, but somehow just can't. I try to make a statement and move on, but the insults come for days and some need answers.

For your Salvation question,....no, you do not have to believe in anything but that Jesus is God in the flesh, born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, took your sins to the cross and died so you wouldn't have to pay the sin price, and was alive again in 3 days, and rose to sit in judgment of the world. BTW, you must also repent of your sins and agree with God that you are a sinner.

One aspect of all this is to stop your rebellion to God. We lost our relationship with God by our rebellion to His sovereignty. To come back to God and have His Spirit within us, we must agree with God. This is why a Christian cannot say homosexuality is ok, when the Bible says plainly in numerous places that it isn't. Did God repent of the destruction of Sodom?

Now, in Genesis, God says during creation that the evening and morning was the first day. That is why Jews start their days in the evening,... because God did. The 6 day creation is a prophesy from God of our history. What He is telling us is we will have 6000 years of man on earth and end with 1000 years of God on earth. He explained creation, Adam and Eve, the Flood, ect, pretty plainly. It is us that start to question what God has plainly said, just as we did in the Garden when we were told not to eat of the fruit of just one tree. We did it anyway, thinking God was a liar.

If you study the Bible, you will see that the prophesies have all come true in their own time, in order. We have but 3 more Biblical prophesies in the future. Feast of Trumpets should be the day we are Raptured, Yom Kippur, or Judgment Day will happen after that, and Feast of Tabernacles will mark the beginning of the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth.

Now, some questions about a young earth. Dis God attempt to tell His people the future events coming their way? Yes. Did Christ fulfill His prophesied coming on Earth at the specified time? Yes. When Christ preached in the Synagogue, did he say we came from pond scum or Adam was a monkey, or the Flood didn't happen? NO! He preached Genesis, Word for Word, because He wrote it. If Jesus failed to report that Genesis was a lie, did He not sin and would that not make Him no better than any man and unable to be a sinless sacrifice for us?

The question isn't whether a Christian has to believe in a young earth, but are you a Christian? Are you still in rebellion? The Bible makes it clear that there is no excuse for non belief in God. He says that fools deny there is a God. He says "Thinking themselves wise, they became fools". He says He will confound them and allow them strong delusion.

As we see in this thread, the evo's will have to re adjust their theory to fit their set of "facts", as they have done for most of my 58 years. I will be attacked as a Bible thumper and called names here. I have read and seen their " facts" since I was a young boy and have determined that God is my friend, God doesn't lie, and I trust God more than atheist men. It is a personal choice I have made over the years as I see a "God" explanation in every pronouncement that they make trying to prove there is no God. Years of Bible study have given me answers that have never changed and years of name calling and fact "massaging" from evo's haven't changed a thing for me but to highlight their "lostness."

We are commanded to "work out our own salvation" and that is just what we must do. No one can say if you are saved or lost if you believe that the earth is billions of years old, but at some point you must decide if your Savior lied to you and the atheists are telling the truth. They certainly don't know what happened, so it is a theory, not truth as they would have you to think. I wasn't there to see Creation so I can't prove Intelligent Design. So it boils down to faith in God, or faith in men. I chose God, and name calling doesn't change the facts. Since Darwin wrote his book, they have changed the theory. They continue to change it because the theory is flawed. It just boils down to whether you are still in rebellion to God? Are you really "His people"?

As we "work out our own salvation" we are confronted with many questions that MUST be answered. One is "Is abortion murder?" Most Christians agree that life comes from God and killing a baby is murder. They have their own DNA, heartbeat, fingerprint, bloodtype, brainwaves, ect, but "scientist's" can't seem to determine if they are human till they come out of the womb. Is homosexuality permitted by Christians? The Bible has scores references on the subject, yet churches are splitting every day over the issue. Evolution is just another attempt by sinful man to remove God from the world and turn Christians from the Truth. IMHO, of course. ;<)

25 posted on 10/21/2009 10:50:26 AM PDT by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Brian Thomas seemed to have overlooked this part of the paper he cited:

(b) Documenting an evolutionary transition

Darwinopterus provides, to our knowledge, the first detailed insights into the transition from basal pterosaurs to pterodactyloids and, when combined with our rapidly increasing knowledge of the pterosaur fossil record (Barrett et al.2008), helps to pinpoint several key features regarding the nature and timing of this event (figure 4c). Two distinct phases are recognized. In the first, elongation of the skull, breaching of the bony bar separating the nasal and antorbital opening, reconfiguration of the cranium leading to an increase in the relative size and volume of the braincase and simplification of the dentition, together with changes to the shape of the cervical vertebrae and loss of the cervical ribs, culminated in the monofenestrate skull and modified neck inherited by Darwinopterus and all pterodactyloids

The authors cleary state that Darwinopterus is a transitional fossil.

It appreas that Mr Thomas should do a little research on Exodus 20:16

26 posted on 10/21/2009 11:08:50 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, There’s a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
What is a non fully formed creature and why do they expect to find fossils of them?

I've asked over and over for a description of what one of the "transitionals" they claim doesn't exist would look like. I finally got one to answer that if birds came from dinosaurs, we should find four-legged dinosaurs with little wing stubs that gradually got larger (as, I guess, the front legs withered away). Another one recently asked why, if animals evolved pairs of eyes, we didn't find fossils with just one eye, then fossils with, I guess, one and a half eyes, until we got two. Apparently a non fully formed creature is something that exists now with parts subtracted.

27 posted on 10/21/2009 11:14:18 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
"What is a non fully formed creature and why do they expect to find fossils of them?"

With the number of highly adapted predators and scavengers prevalent in the ecosystems the dinosaurs lived in the probability of any intact carcass surviving is incredibly remote. Its kind of like expecting to find a whole chicken in the dumpster behind an NFL training camp kitchen.

Those that are found relatively intact are nearly all the result of geological event, which feeds the YEC crowd's wrong stratum argument.

28 posted on 10/21/2009 11:22:36 AM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac; GodGunsGuts
Is it necessary to believe in a young earth creation in order to be saved?

That's the most obvious baiting that I've seen in a long time.

29 posted on 10/21/2009 11:33:29 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I get that about once or twice a month. I used to give long and involved answers, but since I have learned to conserve my energy, I have found a simple “no” will do :o)


30 posted on 10/21/2009 11:36:26 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

Wow, since the Temple of Darwin blessed it as a transitional, there must be no other interpretation...LOL!

The point is, they did not expect or predict (and were indeed surprised and frustrated) that the so-called “transitional” would be a mosaic of fully functional body parts. Do try to keep up, Ira.


31 posted on 10/21/2009 11:43:28 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin; GodGunsGuts
"The point is, they did not expect or predict (and were indeed surprised and frustrated) that the so-called “transitional” would be a mosaic of fully functional body parts."

As I stated in an earlier post, due to scavenging and predation, the probability of finding a complete or intact fossil is more remote than finding a whole, intact chicken carcass in the dumpster behind an NFL training camp kitchen. You just have to keep reminding yourself that discussing science with most of the YEC types is like trying to describe a sunset to someone who is color blind.

32 posted on 10/21/2009 11:50:23 AM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

So what empirical evidence does the author cite to show any other interpretation?


33 posted on 10/21/2009 11:55:41 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, There’s a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin
==So what empirical evidence does the author cite to show any other interpretation?

Ira, Ira, Ira...why is it so hard for the evos to grasp that the empirical evidence is the same for both sides? The question is, which side explains the empirical evidence better. And seeing how the evos were "surprised" and "frustrated" by this new pterosaur, whereas biblical creation anticipates such mosaic creatures, I think it is clear which side has the superior exlanation for the same. Or in the words of the author:

Instead of showing the expected transitional attributes, Darwinopterus was a mosaic of fully formed features woven into a whole and functional animal, now presumed extinct. The researchers noted that it had a head like Pterodactyloids, but it also had the body and long tail of Rhamphorhynchoids. This “bizarre” combination “came as quite a shock to us.”[1]

Thus, these authors advocated a controversial new “mechanism” for the origin of species—rapid, modular evolution. In this view, significant and “whole groups of features (termed ‘modules’ by the researchers)” somehow shuffled between different life forms, then became rewired to make a totally novel form, very rapidly.[1] However, there remains no empirical evidence for a process like this occurring today.[3] Instead, “modular evolution” is entirely inferred from the fossil record’s lack of clearly transitional forms.

Darwinopterus still provides no evidence for gradual transitions between major functional body parts―neither within pterosaurs, nor between their supposed land-based reptile ancestors and flying reptile descendants. And without such gradual changes, the creation of discrete forms must be considered as a superior origins explanation. Thus, the admitted evolutionary frustration is quite understandable.

The creation model predicts that each living creature always existed in basic “either/or” forms. It is thus gratifying for Bible believers, and not at all frustrating, to learn that fossil creatures are found exactly that way.

Unwin admitted that “whole groups of features…that form important structures…seem to have evolved together.”[1] It would be difficult to find a better way to describe God’s creative activity as revealed in a plain reading of Genesis―whole groups of features that form important structures appeared together suddenly, when “he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.”[4]

34 posted on 10/21/2009 12:35:47 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Darwinopterus still provides no evidence for gradual transitions between major functional body parts―neither within pterosaurs, nor between their supposed land-based reptile ancestors and flying reptile descendants. And without such gradual changes, the creation of discrete forms must be considered as a superior origins explanation. Thus, the admitted evolutionary frustration is quite understandable.

The creation model predicts that each living creature always existed in basic “either/or” forms. It is thus gratifying for Bible believers, and not at all frustrating, to learn that fossil creatures are found exactly that way.

However this evidence directly contradicts the assertion shown above. ·

(b) Documenting an evolutionary transition

Darwinopterus provides, to our knowledge, the first detailed insights into the transition from basal pterosaurs to pterodactyloids and, when combined with our rapidly increasing knowledge of the pterosaur fossil record (Barrett et al.2008), helps to pinpoint several key features regarding the nature and timing of this event (figure 4c). Two distinct phases are recognized. In the first, elongation of the skull, breaching of the bony bar separating the nasal and antorbital opening, reconfiguration of the cranium leading to an increase in the relative size and volume of the braincase and simplification of the dentition, together with changes to the shape of the cervical vertebrae and loss of the cervical ribs, culminated in the monofenestrate skull and modified neck inherited by Darwinopterus and all pterodactyloids

Mr Thomas is dishonestly cherry picking the paper in an attempt to support a completely un-scientific position.

35 posted on 10/21/2009 1:00:50 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, There’s a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin; GodGunsGuts
"Ira, Ira, Ira...why is it so hard for the evos to grasp that the empirical evidence is the same for both sides?

GGG may not know squat about science and evolution but he certainly has condescension down pat.

36 posted on 10/21/2009 1:16:51 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; GodGunsGuts

When that is all that you have you have to go with it.


37 posted on 10/21/2009 1:22:42 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, There’s a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin; Natural Law
Must be a 'creation' thing, but did anyone else notice that 'ggg' is really 666 upsidedown?
38 posted on 10/22/2009 3:48:55 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
"GGG may not know squat about science and evolution but he certainly has condescension down pat."

GGG may does not know squat about science and evolution but he certainly has condescension down pat.

There, fixed it for ya.

39 posted on 10/22/2009 6:38:40 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“Existence of Creationists Cause Scientists to Posit Two Evolutionary Paths from Homo Habilis: One to Modern Humans, the Other to Smaller-Brained ‘Creationist’ Species.”


40 posted on 10/22/2009 7:31:43 AM PDT by Ed Hudgins (Rand fan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stormer

GGG is more of an AIDS expert. His homepage has lots of good links.


41 posted on 10/22/2009 8:56:46 AM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

You don’t actually have to go lower case. Upper case GGG still looks a great deal like 666.


42 posted on 10/22/2009 11:12:11 PM PDT by john in springfield (One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe such things.No ordinary man could be such a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

another one hits the mat.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2368942/posts


43 posted on 10/23/2009 4:45:28 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson