by Ludi » Thu 04 Dec 2008, 19:15:49
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Armageddon', '
')Totally untrue. They take a skull from some type of ape / money and say it's the linkage to humans. That is not proof. Show me the gradual change of one species to another. And don't show me one fully developed specie and say this is its ancestor because many similar ones have died off and became instinct. This does not prove a thing. Show me where the gradual change occured. One day it's a dog, the next it's a horse ? I want to see a giraffe where it's neck was small, then one that started gradually growing taller. Guess what ? There aren't any. I wonder why ?
That's ok, A. You can reject paleontology if you want to. You don't seem to understand it and you aren't interested in learning about it, and that's ok.
If you don't accept the fossil record as it stands, and you aren't interested in learning more about it (you didn't follow and read all those links just now), that's your choice. Most people, thank god, aren't that stubborn.
That "giraffe" you ask for would not be called a "giraffe" in it's short-necked form. It would be called something else. Early horses were never dogs, they just looked dog-like, with multiple toes. The equine record shows the toes disappearing. This took millions of years, not "a day."