Why do people deny evolution?

Go back to page 16 of this thread if you wish to see the battlefield.

OK, I did that and saw that the question was summarily dealt with, and not to your favor. Now what?

you suffer from a Creationist view that requires ALL morphological modifications to have occurred AT ONCE. That wasn't the case at all with whales. The fossil record is the best source of gradualistic morphological changes. The genetic and embryological records of existing cetaceasns are merely "record keeping" of what has clearly happened From the Paleocene onward.

. . .Evolution is often, as Miller says

1Being at the right place at the right time

2 TAking whats already there and doing something new with it.

Thus the whale. The only thing I think we should be more considering of is that one of the early "LAWS" of evolution candidacy as verbalized by RAup is that " being a candidate for evolution rather than extinction is usually directly proportional to the number of species in ones genus. So Indohyus may have been a genus with a number of species, each with a minor niche adaptation that made one or more of them learn to love being a MARINE ANIMAL.

We haven't found all these "cousin" fossils as of yet so we cant, in a strait face stand around and pour all of our evolutionarily needed traits onto little Indohyus. He just has about 5 or 6 adaptations that are more precetacean than not (and his fossils were clearly indicating a marine affinity) in the ancient Indian sub continent alongside the nasty firey landside conditions that Indohyus may have learned to escape.

Why do you suppose men have nipples?

There is a synchronicity between swallowing and breathing that is distinctly different between land and sea mammals. That along with the necessity for breach birth would have had to develop simultaneously. Show the fossil evidence without simply saying it must have happened.

Why do you suppose men have nipples?

Because there is no evidence that you are denying it for lack of evidence. Where is your evidence? I see none. All you do is spout nonsense without any evidence of why you deny the theory.

Que. Where do you think zebra strips came from. Some dude painting em on ha. Like the way your giving the egotists a run though..

There is a synchronicity between swallowing and breathing that is distinctly different between land and sea mammals. That along with the necessity for breach birth would have had to develop simultaneously. Show the fossil evidence without simply saying it must have happened.

You've got a lot of catching up to do, evidence-wise. You'll get more from me when you've shown some for your god hypothesis.

Why do you suppose men have nipples?

Que human beings are continually changing shape take a look in your local high street. Thats change of form by means of relativeness in action. But relativeness is of its self nonmoving. Consciousness as relativeness can be seen as nonmoving in any ref frame.

neologist wrote:

There is a synchronicity between swallowing and breathing that is distinctly different between land and sea mammals. That along with the necessity for breach birth would have had to develop simultaneously. Show the fossil evidence without simply saying it must have happened.

FBM wrote:

You've got a lot of catching up to do, evidence-wise. You'll get more from me when you've shown some for your god hypothesis.

You read the conclusions of the 'experts' and conclude that because they are 'experts' they must be correct. You call that 'evidence'.

But the conundrums associated with the migrating nostril are impossible to ignore.

Catch up. . .