A good summary of so called human evolution.

Lets see what the confused evolutionists now say....Euarconta is neither Primate nor Scandentia, but ancestral to both.Euarconta is neither Primate nor Scandentia, but ancestral to both.Euarconta is neither Primate nor Scandentia, but ancestral to both.OK, but lets not misunderstand their artists conception of our ancestrial tree..and lets not forget all the people HEREIN who said we came from our relatives the bats and treeshrews and Euarconta . Lets read it againEuarconta is neither Primate nor Scandentia, but ancestral to both.Notice the slippery speech. Euarconta is our ancestor, but he or she says it is neither Primate... NO its suppose to be our ancestor our foreftaher, where we braanched off from. Did you catch their deception, intentional deception and con.Nevertheless he or she (I dont know their gender) says Euarconta is neither Primate nor Scandentia, but ancestral to both.Euarconta is an ancestor to us primates..I finally again proved that dumb stupid evolutionists think we came from Euarconta... they said it again....and again.Lets read it again.Euarconta is neither Primate nor Scandentia, but ancestral to both.Yup thats what he or she admitted.I win, creation wins, treeshrews lose..

False. Euarchonta includes primates, scandentia, and their common ancestor. Any clade includes all of the living species (which are cousins), any extinct side branches, and the common ancestors of those cousins. Primates and Scandentia ARE Euarochonta, just as humans are still primates. It isn't an artistic conception. It is an objective phylogeny based on morphological and genetic data. Primates ARE Euarochonta. You keep getting this wrong. Primates are Euarochonta in the same way that Great Danes and Chihuahuas are dogs. However, this doesn't mean that Chihuahuas are ancestral to Great Danes just because they are both dogs.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

No your family tree clears states that E......'s are our ancestors.Please stick to your tree and quite mixing up your branches.Primates are labeled after and down the branch. You say, E's are our ancestors. Quite being so gutless in your theory. Stand up for it and be proud of your ancestors you think came before us.I mean, you are protected HERE because the administration disallows me or any of us from questioning your MISSING LINK of E's being our ancestors, so switch to your subjective attacks on me (and others) as you obviously are protected from expanding or explaining your data or imaginations or artists depictions.Humans came from humans say CreationistsHumans came from E-beings that are now extinct..... how convenient....Evolution is a con, brethren and non brethren.

Evolutionists are linguists as mentioned,Taq as an evolutionists is an expert linguist and semantic teacher and preacher.He or she knows no math and obviously doesn;t know logic because logic is math is SET LAW......The set of primates is not concentric with Euarchonta's. They are not the same... E's came before according to evolutionists. They are suppose to be our ancestors, our forefathers.E's supposedly branched off into many species.. (not again that evolution teaches branching, which again they deny when faced with its racism doctrine.......) or sub branches.E's are not all primates...... there are different branches... supposedly ...theoretically with the insane theory of evolution.E's are not all primates,Lets try and find evolutionists Missing LINK and see how artists drew them up..Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.

Here they are....our ancestors according to evolutionary theory and according to evolutionists HEREEuarconta - Google SearchCant you see the similiarity...... you just need a good artist, even though the variation tends to be rather diverse for an extinct species.Hallelujah say the evolutionists, we have our MISSING LINK....

Taq, you have to draw up a new tree, and develop new branching...Your old tree, showed E turning into primates....... No, your tree showed E turning into two different species..... scandentia and Dermapterra,,,, whose ancestor was paraprimates.. (obviously extinct and probably just another made up missing link..covered up with a fancy scientific sounding name)Hence logically you have to redraw your tree branching to show that E's descendants are only one KINDor you can say hysterically that all humans are E's and all E's other descendants in that branching are also humans.Whats good for the dogs is good for the E's, but you must be consistent.... as you are not !!So keep drawing and hire a new improved artist for your new theory..Because we aren't dermoptera's or scandentia'sEdited by Davidjay, : No reason given.

No, it doesn't. It clearly states that humans ARE Euarochonta just as humans are still primates and Chihuahuas are still dogs. Primates are labeled as being on the Euarochonta branch, which means they are still Euarochonta. Where did I say that? Quote me, I dare you.

It shows that primates ARE Euarchonta. They are on the Euarchonta branch which makes them Euarchonta. Primates are just a group within Euarchonta in the same way that apes are a group within primates.You need to learn how phylogenies and clades work before embarrassing yourself like this. Are you saying that Danes and Chihuahuas are not dogs?

Trolls don't need to know anything. They can disrupt (as that's their goal) through ignorance.

Humans ARE Euarchonta because we are on the Euarchonta branch. This is the same as saying primates are a group of mammals, but not all mammals are primates. Apes are a group of primates, but not all primates are apes. Hominids are a group of apes, but not all apes are hominids. All modern humans are hominids, but not all hominids are anatomically modern humans.My word, man, this is basic biology. Were you never taught how taxonomy or cladistics works? Do you really think that Chihuahuas stopped being dogs when they started looking different from other dogs? Did birds stop being vertebrates when they grew feathers? You don't evolve out of your ancestry. You are what your ancestors were plus modifications. Humans are still hominids, still apes, still primates, still mammals, still vertebrates, and still eukaryotes. We never stopped being those things.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

And all our ancestors are now extinct... how convenient..I quess we got magic beneficial mutations which elevated us into a higher superior race than our cousin tree shrews and uncle bats and above the Euarconta organisms.Pity we are not allowed to discuss this on a New Topic and discuss Missing Links.... its very embarassing for evolutionists, so I reckon that answers that question.Primates ancestors were Euarconta say the evolutionist...Do take a look at their supposed pics again... and pic out your ancestor if you choose.

Don't confuse extinct with dead. Individual organisms die. Species become extinct.

Did you think your ancestors were immortal? I don't remember any of saying that organisms are immortal. You would be guessing wrong. Pity that you can't even discuss the topics of threads that you start. False. Evolutionists say that primates ARE Euarchonta.

Haven't you been taught where babies come from? Why don't you quote their actual words? You don't come from a branch. You are ON a branch.

I think Davidjay has been asleep for 150 years."Is man an ape or an angel? My Lord, I am on the side of the angels. I repudiate with indignation and abhorrence these new-fangled theories."
DisraeliIn 1842, Queen Victoria went to London Zoo. She was not amused:
"The orang-outang is too wonderful he is frightfully, and painfully, and disagreeably human."