Article Image
News Link • Science

New Theory of Animal Evolution

• arclein
the origination of the structural motifs of animal form were actually predictable and relatively sudden, with abrupt morphological transformations favored during the early period of animal evolution. Newman's long view of evolution is fully explained in his

2 Comments in Response to

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

Good work, JG. None of these scientist joker types has any kind of a for-sure clue about how old the earth is. The best they have is Carbon-14 dating. And C-14 is only accurate back to about 2,500 years BC. Why? Because they need something to run a base-line with, on the C-14 machine.

The base-line has to be something that has been accurately dated by other than C-14 methods, from the era that they are testing for or earlier. If they don't have that, all their ideas about C-14 dating are simply guestimates at best. So, until we have something that has been accurately dated to be from a million years ago, we don't know if anything is a million years old or not. And as far as I have heard, we don't HAVE any way of accurately dating anything from a million years ago. So, maybe there ISN'T anything that is a million years old. Maybe not even 10,000 years old, since we can't even date that far back.

Life is so delicate in some ways, that any method that life might have evolved through, would be the method that totally "killed" the life that it had just formed.

Life is so complicated in some ways, that scientists aren't smart enough to extend anybody's life more than a decade or so. If life were simpler, we would have figured out how to live to 1,000 years old long ago. Since we not only have NOT figured it out - with all those powerfully brainy scientists working on it - but rather, we are still opening up questions that need answering before we can do it (extend life), somebody or something out there is extremely smart that it could put life together at all this way.

Now I don't really blame those scientists for being all that dumb. I mean, how dumb can you be to keep on thinking that life, which is so complicated that we can't figure it out, could somehow "evolve" by accident? If we aren't looking at some form of god-entity, then at least we are looking at god-nature around us. And evolutionary scientists don't want to admit that there is a God. How dumb can they be?

Yet, the thing that they do is, they keep right on talking and acting like evolution is a fact. Why, evolution doesn't even fit the definitions of a theory! So, what does that tell us about evolutionary scientists? It tells us that they are some of the best political activists around... or they have been duped by some strong political activists who are trying to turn people away from natural laws, so that there is chaos among the people. All the easier to control them that way.

Political forums are some of the most right-at-home places for evolutionary scientists.

Comment by John Green
Entered on:

Sorry but I have to call bullsh*t on this one.

If the motifs of animal forms were predictable, notwithstanding the fact that someone would need to have been around to predict them - absurd in itself - but then why do we still find so many spectacular and bizarre previously undiscovered species, some with quite alien and UNPREDICTABLE form?

 I know you invented the internet Robert Klein, but you were not God and you were not present for the unfolding of your own evolutionary design.

Nice try though.  However, you've now crossed over into kookland.  Normally, I find the articles you post interesting.  These comments from you are just bizarre though and nonsensical.


Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network:

Free Talk Live