A good summary of so called human evolution.

Wake up Razz.... The amazing human body has adaptions built in, by our Creator, you saying that your god of evolution selects them and makes us different than earlier humans is a stretch to say the least. Humans remain humans, whether we have resistances or have lost resistances, or face new man made diseases or old ones resurrected from dead burial grounds.Humans have not evolved, humans remain humans.(Artifically shooting our children with so called vaccines that are suppose to build up their resistances have backfired so that they give them disease and autism etc etc...)The original wins, creationism wins again....

Says the person who does not understand evolution ... or evidence ... or just doesn't want to accept the reality that shows evolution in every generation of every species on earth.Every person is born with new mutations neither parent had. This is documented fact. Just as we remain apes, just as we remain primates, just as we remain Hominini, just as we remain Homininae, just as we remain Hominidae, just as we remain Hominoidae, just as we remain Hominoidea, just as we remain Catarrhini, just as we remain mammals, just as we remain vertebrates ...Enjoy

You must learn to state something, say something, stand on one of your own statements, Razz. Dont be evasive and talk about what I write and discuss and prove, make a statement and verify it with luck and chance statements.Anyway Humans have not evolved, is what I say and state. You have to state, 'Humans did evolve' and then tell us who are oour ancestors were, without microscopic graphs from others being your cop out. Just state clearly where primates came from, where their forefathers came from backwards to one celled living organisms.Evolutionists have had decades to figure this out, so state it.

Curiously, your inability or deceit about understanding the answers you have been given, does not mean they are not answered. You have answers in depth, but reply with assertions at odds with the facts.Bluster all you want, but YOU have yet to substantiate a single assertion you have made.Enjoy

Why do we have to state who our ancestors were? We already have genetic evidence that we share a common ancestor with other apes and other primates. We can't know for sure if any fossil has living descendants because those fossils don't carry DNA. However, that doesn't make the evidence for common ancestry go away.We don't need to name anything since we already have the evidence.

Can we therefore call it, NO NAME EVIDENCE....You call it evidence, I would call it a wild nameless theory.I thought after all these years, you would have pinpointed some kind of ancestry for us primates...

You can call it "mountains of genetic evidence supporting common ancestry". We have pinpointed ancestry through genetic evidence.

Hmmm... on the thread Should we teach evolution and creation in the school system... Razz states In other words, Razz's results or conclusions differ from other evolutionists and evolutionists do not agree and have no confirmed idea where we came from... which is why they are sooo evasive and noncommittal because they just dont know, and they are debating where we came from.... who are the ancestors of mankind were.Consequently Razz dismisses himself from this query as his results differ so much from other evolutionists... or we can rationally conclude that evolution does not agree on who our ancestors were....Also note that he uses the word 'BRANCH' which evolutionists and Razz used, yet evolutionists HEREIN keep denying they ever believed in branching. For I was told I was misrepresenting them when I said, their branching theory from one species making a new species is part of the racial doctrine of evolutionSEE Evolution is a racist doctrine thread.So this new breaking news does clarify that evolutionists are NOT in agreement as to our ancestors, they still dont know.Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.

That's not what RAZD said, nor is it what the scientists are saying. What they are saying is that they aren't sure which of those other branches are more closely related to us. All scientists agree that we share a common ancestor with other mammal species. Nothing you are pointing to casts doubt on that. The only disagreement is the precise details of which branches branched first. There is no doubt that the mammal branches join together at one time in the past. The only thing we disagree with is your misrepresentation of how the branching works. You continually make the mistake of taking the species at the tips of the branches and putting them where the branches meet. That's not how it works.

I think part of the issue in Davidjay's mis-understanding of how branching works stems from the excessive inbreeding that tends to happen within Creationist circles.

Exactly evolutionists aren't sure, where we came from and so are still debating this after years and years... and so Razz seeking recognition of her theory proposes her theory in hopes of the glory of selecting the right branch from whence we came.Why because evolutionists dont know, and have no idea and are just making it up as they go, and looking for fame and fortune in their diggings and writings.Thanks for confirming what I have been saying, but it was nicely couched in semantics for the unwary. But there it is, more confirmation that evolutions dont know what branch they are on.Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.

I know Dio, you are trying to be cute and nasty at the same time, but the problem is you are being inconsistent with your concepts and your lack of knowledge, as is the case with unconnected evolutionary minds)Inbreeding is supposedly one of your cornerstone proofs of evolution, as seen by Razz's dog graphics and supposed explanations, and so logically you should not be trying to degrade creationists by saying we inbreed together, as accoording to your religion that can make us better and more viable.Anyway, lets pose that question to you, which Razz is trying to avoid.Is inbreedingproof of evolutionOrIs inbreeding not a proof of evolution ?One or the other, choose and state it rather than I am always mis understanding your religion, and misrepresenting your supposed science.

Sorry David but once again you are simply lying and misrepresenting what RAZD and others have said.No one but you has even suggested that inbreeding is proof or anything or of making anything better or more viable.

He's a Christian Troll. A more elaborate troll than most, but a troll nonetheless. So don't expect any meaningful dialog. He is just here to annoy. Most are ignoring him and some (like me) are just screwing with him at this stage.

And a narcissist with a huge ego.