Summations Only

But I think you're missing the point. Faith said, and you quoted her and put it in bold, that "the bones all fit together the same way". Well, the bones do in fact fit together the same way --- just like the bones of humans and chimps fit together in the same way, though Faith probably wouldn't use that as an example.

I thought maybe I could use some of that black space on my picture to quote these:The fossil record is the primary factual evidence for evolution in times past, and evolution is well documented by further evidence from other scientific disciplines, including comparative anatomy, biogeography, genetics, molecular biology, and studies of viral and bacterial diseases." --- The Paleontological Society"The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time, from their first records in the early Paleozoic Era about 500 million years ago to the great diversity we see in the world today. The hypothesis has been strengthened by so many independent observations of fossil sequences that it has come to be regarded as a confirmed fact, as certain as the drift of continents through time or the lawful operation of gravity." --- Society of Vertebrate Paleontology"The crowning achievement of paleontology has been the demonstration, from the history of life, of the validity of the evolutionary theory [...] The fossil record contains many well-documented examples of the transition from one species into another, as well as the origin of new physical features." --- American Geological Institute.I'm thinking maybe just the second one, in small type at the bottom.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No. This has been explained to you. You're getting the chain of reasoning backwards. Stop it.

The fact that they could happen is in fact evidence that they are possible.To find out whether they have happened, we'd want to look at, guess what, the fossil record. Among other things.

Ah, but what about the ones geneticists are aware of? No. This has been explained to you.

No.This has been explained to you.

The fossils are evidence before they are interpreted, because they can be compared to prediction. In order to misunderstand this point, you are turning the scientific method backwards and upside down.

Here: Still no sign of a talking snake, though.

No. Nor does anyone else. 'Cos they don't exist.

No, there are actual instances of elongated skulls, like there are of intermediate forms and like there aren't of giants.What I would do is ask why you mention them, and why you're getting your "information" about them from a woo-woo site.

And yet lots of scientists have found new species of humans, and published their work, and won public acclaim, scientific kudos, and more grant money. So if this is the sort of thing the globalist elite is trying to stop, then the globalist elite is really crap at their job.

Why do aliens make crop circles? Why does Jesus appear on tortillas?

I think we're all in agreement that there are real deformed skulls. Museums are full of them.

'Cos there's no evidence for giants. You might as well ask --- if the globalists are doing such a terrible job why can't I get you guys to believe in flying pigs? It's got nothing to do with globalists, and everything to do with the truly dramatic paucity of volant suiformes.

Wait, you think the deformed skulls are evidence of giants? I wondered why you were talking about them.But my dear Big Al, Julio Tello didn't just find the skulls. He found the entire mummies of the people in question. They were of normal stature. There are plenty of pictures of them on the Internet, y'know.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.