As I said before tall human beings in Africa shared the same environment with pigmean and this doesn't prove evolution. Adaptation to environment is simply that, adaptation WITHIN the limits of DNA plan. DNA doesn't allow the existence of NEW specie not even bombed by gamma rays and much less under natural influence. I don't how many times I have already said that and the names of the scientists DENYING your statements and it seems or you have difficulties to read English or we need to knock-knock-knock- again many times to drill the skull and let the thought gets into your brain.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creation - Evolution Continuum
- Thread starter (Q)
- Start date
Films are just an example and don't laugh too loud because great scientists like Carl Sagan, Asimov, Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawkins do care about science fiction based upon science
So what? They all agree evolution is a fact.
If you couldn't comprehend what I wrote, how on Earth are you gonna understand evolution or science???
You ramble about nonsense and not science big difference.
Scientists don't write "anecdotes
Exactly, so stop using anecdotes as support for your arguments.
Do you think I 'll have to write every single reference just to satisfy your ignorance.
Yes, if you continue making ridiculous claims, youll need to back them up with references.
I don't laugh at you.... I pity you.
Thats fine Ill do the laughing.
The links are not stupid
Maybe, but they certainly draw fallacious and erroneous conclusions based on anecdotes as opposed to evidence.
you trust that not cos you have witnessed the thing. That's for sure cos I know many things that you even see by television or video tapes or photographs you hesitate or just don't believe.
This post is very confusing and doesnt seem to go anywhere but Ill try to make some sense of it.
Ive witnessed the evidence of evolution first hand, not from TV. Perhaps you should stop watching it, get off your *** and learn something.
So, you trust because the idea pleases you.
Unlike your own personal opinions and anecdotes, science doesnt work that way. Scientists dont make up theories because the idea pleases them; they make up theories based on observations and evidence.
The rest of this post is one long confusing rant that I cant make heads or tails. Is English your second language?
I defy and challenge your pseudo-knowledge about that thermodynamic issue and let's see how deep the rabbit goes
OK, the second law states that the entropy of a system can increase or decrease depending on the volume and energy of a system but that the entropy of the universe will always increase. Therefore, number 11 on your list is wrong as is the conclusion drawn.
Next.
Someone asked me about thermodynamics. Well, it can be explained in 3 ways the 3 laws
You show an incredible lack of understanding of thermodynamics.
So much of Hawkins expertise!
And so much for your delirious post - that made no sense at all.
Yet this argument of yours has nothing to do with evolution
Kettle black pot
Perhaps you need to understand a bit of animal language science but I would have to teach from zero and I don't have the time nor the energy to do that.
Damn that was funny, but now I have to clean the coffee off my laptop that came spraying out my nose when I read that. Should we start calling you, Dr. Dolittle?
No, the animals don't talk about philosophy nor science or math.
So, what do animals talk about?
So what? They all agree evolution is a fact.
If you couldn't comprehend what I wrote, how on Earth are you gonna understand evolution or science???
You ramble about nonsense and not science big difference.
Scientists don't write "anecdotes
Exactly, so stop using anecdotes as support for your arguments.
Do you think I 'll have to write every single reference just to satisfy your ignorance.
Yes, if you continue making ridiculous claims, youll need to back them up with references.
I don't laugh at you.... I pity you.
Thats fine Ill do the laughing.
The links are not stupid
Maybe, but they certainly draw fallacious and erroneous conclusions based on anecdotes as opposed to evidence.
you trust that not cos you have witnessed the thing. That's for sure cos I know many things that you even see by television or video tapes or photographs you hesitate or just don't believe.
This post is very confusing and doesnt seem to go anywhere but Ill try to make some sense of it.
Ive witnessed the evidence of evolution first hand, not from TV. Perhaps you should stop watching it, get off your *** and learn something.
So, you trust because the idea pleases you.
Unlike your own personal opinions and anecdotes, science doesnt work that way. Scientists dont make up theories because the idea pleases them; they make up theories based on observations and evidence.
The rest of this post is one long confusing rant that I cant make heads or tails. Is English your second language?
I defy and challenge your pseudo-knowledge about that thermodynamic issue and let's see how deep the rabbit goes
OK, the second law states that the entropy of a system can increase or decrease depending on the volume and energy of a system but that the entropy of the universe will always increase. Therefore, number 11 on your list is wrong as is the conclusion drawn.
Next.
Someone asked me about thermodynamics. Well, it can be explained in 3 ways the 3 laws
You show an incredible lack of understanding of thermodynamics.
So much of Hawkins expertise!
And so much for your delirious post - that made no sense at all.
Yet this argument of yours has nothing to do with evolution
Kettle black pot
Perhaps you need to understand a bit of animal language science but I would have to teach from zero and I don't have the time nor the energy to do that.
Damn that was funny, but now I have to clean the coffee off my laptop that came spraying out my nose when I read that. Should we start calling you, Dr. Dolittle?
No, the animals don't talk about philosophy nor science or math.
So, what do animals talk about?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
inca said:
I suppose if you call the whole continent of Africa one environment....
the people known as 'pigmies' are a tribe native to the deep forests of central Africa... Their small stature makes it easier for them to move around.. much like the small forest elephants and pigmey hippos...
if you are talking about the dobe... the bushmen then they adapted to their dry lands long before the arival of the taller tribes ... The tall peoples moved in from the savanas much later with their cattle.
simple ethnography...
ps... the whole gamma ray thing is silly... it shows the effects of extreme radiation on living things not the process of evolution...
if we have "difficulties to read English" is because you have "difficulties to write English"... I admit my grammer isn't stellar but wow...
wa:-do
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
Q,
I am no longer an atheist-- I now consider YOU to be my god!!
Excellent post!! I can barely type this I'm laughing so hard!!
:lol:
I am no longer an atheist-- I now consider YOU to be my god!!
Excellent post!! I can barely type this I'm laughing so hard!!
:lol:
In your excellent post you don't answer anything at all no add any further detail about evolution. If I quot the words of a scientist and many details of what they have said you call them "anecdotes". It's your choice. I just mention what they as scientists think about the issue. I'm not the one who invented the name "anthropic principle". It was invented by people who are scientists and I let the reader decide while you laugh. Of course, I know you hate tooth and nail what I post and the disguise is writing "laughing". What I posted about laughing at the idea of science fiction has to be discussed into that context, so when you asked "so what?" The answer is : don't laugh about science fiction cos the real scientists don't laugh even if they believe in evolution or anthropic principle or pantheism or whatever.
You are so cocky and again unaware of my saying. My posting about the 3 laws of thermodynamic I did it on purpose. That EXAMPLE was not invented by me either BUT SCIENTIST AND BRITISH WRITER C.P.SNOW and supported by physicist Michio Kaku in Hyperspace in the theme "Death by Entropy". chapter 14. Hence you are not laughing at me but laughing two well known scientists!!!!!
You said <<Therefore, number 11 on your list is wrong as is the conclusion drawn>> What point 11 in the list? What did I write that contradict thermodynamic law, Mr?
Painted Wolf: tall people or short people were an example of adaptation within the same or different places, it doesn't matter. Yet, that's not evolution.
Someone asks me what do animals talk. Well, if he's the scientific mind it's his (her) duty to demonstrate the animals indeed talk about philosophy or math. If that person believes Dr.Doolittle-Evolution can perform that miracle, go ahead my our day! Meantime you keep on laughing, let me share something before I withdraw cos I really don't see you're writing about scientific data here and I didn't come to this forum to face a private war against a fistful of wise persons. I will add something more here and I will wait the post about what did I say wrong against thermodynamics before I withdraw.
The Genesis account is the edited Reader's Digest version of Sumerian account. Even Berossus explan the mutants in "EDEN" were hideous heary creatures with the same defficiencies so if Hollywood ever creates a film about our origins, really has to be a mixture of Mission Mars-Space Odysee 2001-Island of Dr. Moureau-Planet of the Apes and the futuristic film Annunaki.
I wrote something about Adam's rib before in this forum . In Sumerian account that was "ti" meaning rib & life while "tit" in Accadian is "maleable clay" while "egg" (like in egg-cell) is all a game of words "bos-bisa-besa" (clay-mud-egg). I have said mutations are rare quoting from scientists, not anecdotes. Therefore the "gods" ,must've inserted aretrovirus or inactivated the protein HSP90 (something not explained not even by Sitchin) to provoke a mutational stopping. I was discussing the mutation field with Dr. Javier Urbna who recently appeared in Canadian tv channel. Perhaps the key to understand this is the specification giving in Genesis 1:27 which is different from 1:26; 2:7, 18-24 because it's a compilation from ancient manuscripts. Unfortunately I won't give any details. Nobody seems to be interested and everything I read is laughing at my writings. In the meantime I gotta confess I read the Cherokee legend about the "devil monkey" with details since the Egyptians worshipped baboon god and even trained baboons to sweep their temples. In Peru, the ancient Masmas depicted statues of the baboon (not available by internet) and it seems there were no baboons in old times in Peru.
There was no natural evolution. The gamma rays bombing was performed by evolutionist scientists who wanted to demonstrate radiation (probably because of asteroids) could eventually transform one specie into another. That was never the case, not with gamma nor with any other thing. The only way to produce something bizarre in that sense is even via genetic engineering as the monkey or rabbit mixed with the genes of jellyfish. Hence, what made us humans with the capacity of reasoning the way we do and make us different from other creatures was done by manipulation...direct manipulation indeed. No randomic chances against mathematics as Hawkings would be believe. He's astronomer, he's not genetic expert. He should've ask the ones who know better.
The experiences in apes in the past was undertaken many times, Sumerians account tell us. Many of the mutants couldn't survive. The ADAMUS were made into gods' resemblance with some elements taken from their blood. In Hebrew DAM and ADAMU is also blood like Mesopotamian "red" ADAMATU. There was even the blood of goddesses as well. Clay was used in the experience:
www.sitchin.com
(last part)
The goddesses even "watched their hands" (something the Western doctors only started to do after thousands of years). Adam was a soul-blood "nephesh" in Hebrew. In Sumerian language was "napishtu" meaning something in -gods- blood.
You are so cocky and again unaware of my saying. My posting about the 3 laws of thermodynamic I did it on purpose. That EXAMPLE was not invented by me either BUT SCIENTIST AND BRITISH WRITER C.P.SNOW and supported by physicist Michio Kaku in Hyperspace in the theme "Death by Entropy". chapter 14. Hence you are not laughing at me but laughing two well known scientists!!!!!
You said <<Therefore, number 11 on your list is wrong as is the conclusion drawn>> What point 11 in the list? What did I write that contradict thermodynamic law, Mr?
Painted Wolf: tall people or short people were an example of adaptation within the same or different places, it doesn't matter. Yet, that's not evolution.
Someone asks me what do animals talk. Well, if he's the scientific mind it's his (her) duty to demonstrate the animals indeed talk about philosophy or math. If that person believes Dr.Doolittle-Evolution can perform that miracle, go ahead my our day! Meantime you keep on laughing, let me share something before I withdraw cos I really don't see you're writing about scientific data here and I didn't come to this forum to face a private war against a fistful of wise persons. I will add something more here and I will wait the post about what did I say wrong against thermodynamics before I withdraw.
The Genesis account is the edited Reader's Digest version of Sumerian account. Even Berossus explan the mutants in "EDEN" were hideous heary creatures with the same defficiencies so if Hollywood ever creates a film about our origins, really has to be a mixture of Mission Mars-Space Odysee 2001-Island of Dr. Moureau-Planet of the Apes and the futuristic film Annunaki.
I wrote something about Adam's rib before in this forum . In Sumerian account that was "ti" meaning rib & life while "tit" in Accadian is "maleable clay" while "egg" (like in egg-cell) is all a game of words "bos-bisa-besa" (clay-mud-egg). I have said mutations are rare quoting from scientists, not anecdotes. Therefore the "gods" ,must've inserted aretrovirus or inactivated the protein HSP90 (something not explained not even by Sitchin) to provoke a mutational stopping. I was discussing the mutation field with Dr. Javier Urbna who recently appeared in Canadian tv channel. Perhaps the key to understand this is the specification giving in Genesis 1:27 which is different from 1:26; 2:7, 18-24 because it's a compilation from ancient manuscripts. Unfortunately I won't give any details. Nobody seems to be interested and everything I read is laughing at my writings. In the meantime I gotta confess I read the Cherokee legend about the "devil monkey" with details since the Egyptians worshipped baboon god and even trained baboons to sweep their temples. In Peru, the ancient Masmas depicted statues of the baboon (not available by internet) and it seems there were no baboons in old times in Peru.
There was no natural evolution. The gamma rays bombing was performed by evolutionist scientists who wanted to demonstrate radiation (probably because of asteroids) could eventually transform one specie into another. That was never the case, not with gamma nor with any other thing. The only way to produce something bizarre in that sense is even via genetic engineering as the monkey or rabbit mixed with the genes of jellyfish. Hence, what made us humans with the capacity of reasoning the way we do and make us different from other creatures was done by manipulation...direct manipulation indeed. No randomic chances against mathematics as Hawkings would be believe. He's astronomer, he's not genetic expert. He should've ask the ones who know better.
The experiences in apes in the past was undertaken many times, Sumerians account tell us. Many of the mutants couldn't survive. The ADAMUS were made into gods' resemblance with some elements taken from their blood. In Hebrew DAM and ADAMU is also blood like Mesopotamian "red" ADAMATU. There was even the blood of goddesses as well. Clay was used in the experience:
www.sitchin.com
(last part)
The goddesses even "watched their hands" (something the Western doctors only started to do after thousands of years). Adam was a soul-blood "nephesh" in Hebrew. In Sumerian language was "napishtu" meaning something in -gods- blood.
Inca sez:
If I quot the words of a scientist and many details of what they have said you call them "anecdotes". It's your choice. I just mention what they as scientists think about the issue.
The ARE anecdotes and are not observations or evidence. If you provide evidence in favor of creationism or some other theory, Ill take a look. Have you got any?
I'm not the one who invented the name "anthropic principle". It was invented by people who are scientists and I let the reader decide while you laugh.
It was originally proposed by Wallace in 1903.
don't laugh about science fiction cos the real scientists don't laugh even if they believe in evolution or anthropic principle or pantheism or whatever
And this is supposed to make sense? Again I ask, is English your second language?
Michio Kaku in Hyperspace in the theme "Death by Entropy
Lets get something crystal sparkling clear, you will never learn anything from Kaku. He is a sensationalist who conjures up wild hypotheses for the layman. Yes, he bases many of his ideas on physics, but he focuses on taking a mathematical theory (example: wormholes) and extrapolates a theory in which the math should work in real life. He fails to tell his readers that the reality of such theories has other problems that render the theories useless.
He does sell books though, and that is his main focus.
Hence you are not laughing at me but laughing two well known scientists!!!!!
No, its you.
What point 11 in the list? What did I write that contradict thermodynamic law
Go back and read your own post. Or did you copy and paste something that you dont remember and most likely did not understand?
I didn't come to this forum to face a private war against a fistful of wise persons.
Then perhaps you should listen to these wise persons and learn something instead of spouting nonsense.
what did I say wrong against thermodynamics before I withdraw
In order to provide a much shorter answer the question should be, What did you say right about thermodynamics?
No randomic chances against mathematics as Hawkings would be believe
Hawkings is another one of those sensationalists who youll never learn anything. He is accredited with a theory regarding the loss of mass in a black hole based on mathematics as opposed to observation.
He's astronomer, he's not genetic expert.
You should get your facts straight; Hawking is a physicist who originally began as a mathematician and later worked in the field of cosmology working with general relativity. Thats how he came up with his theory.
You're quite the mixed up puppy, inca.
If I quot the words of a scientist and many details of what they have said you call them "anecdotes". It's your choice. I just mention what they as scientists think about the issue.
The ARE anecdotes and are not observations or evidence. If you provide evidence in favor of creationism or some other theory, Ill take a look. Have you got any?
I'm not the one who invented the name "anthropic principle". It was invented by people who are scientists and I let the reader decide while you laugh.
It was originally proposed by Wallace in 1903.
don't laugh about science fiction cos the real scientists don't laugh even if they believe in evolution or anthropic principle or pantheism or whatever
And this is supposed to make sense? Again I ask, is English your second language?
Michio Kaku in Hyperspace in the theme "Death by Entropy
Lets get something crystal sparkling clear, you will never learn anything from Kaku. He is a sensationalist who conjures up wild hypotheses for the layman. Yes, he bases many of his ideas on physics, but he focuses on taking a mathematical theory (example: wormholes) and extrapolates a theory in which the math should work in real life. He fails to tell his readers that the reality of such theories has other problems that render the theories useless.
He does sell books though, and that is his main focus.
Hence you are not laughing at me but laughing two well known scientists!!!!!
No, its you.
What point 11 in the list? What did I write that contradict thermodynamic law
Go back and read your own post. Or did you copy and paste something that you dont remember and most likely did not understand?
I didn't come to this forum to face a private war against a fistful of wise persons.
Then perhaps you should listen to these wise persons and learn something instead of spouting nonsense.
what did I say wrong against thermodynamics before I withdraw
In order to provide a much shorter answer the question should be, What did you say right about thermodynamics?
No randomic chances against mathematics as Hawkings would be believe
Hawkings is another one of those sensationalists who youll never learn anything. He is accredited with a theory regarding the loss of mass in a black hole based on mathematics as opposed to observation.
He's astronomer, he's not genetic expert.
You should get your facts straight; Hawking is a physicist who originally began as a mathematician and later worked in the field of cosmology working with general relativity. Thats how he came up with his theory.
You're quite the mixed up puppy, inca.
Mr. Q has written in many pages already evolution has mountains of evidence and the way science works has established evolution truth. Please, why don't you show us each and every single one of the evidences? Meanwhile let's do like he does in order to believe our own lies "evolution is a fact" "that's real science working"...perhaps the readers will believe the claiming (without any scientific data so far in several pages) after a while. You see, even Hawkings was convinced while genetics is not his area, he believes in spite the fact he can't explain where he trusts the laws (thermodynamics and whatever law) of the universe. I'm still waiting your reply of what was my alleguedly "point 11" against thermodynamic law or WHY DO YOU LAUGH AGAINST MY POSTING QUOTING A SCIENTIST's SAYING?
Bravo, Mr. Q. Now we know every single posting when I mention a scientist is a wild man giving crazy sensational ideas to the world. Hawkings, Michio Kaku, Hoagland and every single one I mention is gonna be consider idiotic! Of course you're gonna consider myself not at your height, Mr. WHO ? In my comment I didn't write any number 11 and you're the one who says I'm wrong about thermodynamics, so it's only you who says I was wrong. That means nothing. But I really wanted to answer you more, but the more pissed off you get the more we know you think you're above specif names on science changing the subject about my English,etc. Mr. thank you so much for that illumination. Now we can all see how come a scientific mind can get you to a point of no return. No more conversation with you. It was fun!
The only accurate thing you wrote is your correction when I wrote Hawkins is an astronomer. I was to correct it myself before the slip of the finger. Your correction is accurate, he's a physicist. The rest of your posting...well, I let the readers have their own opinion. Let them read all the "mountain of evidence of evolution" you have to add in this theme after I'm gone....
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
inca said:
inca said:
inca said:
um... so wich one is it then?
you obviously did do the much discussed number 11... but I still don't see why decay proves evolution wrong... eaven if you were right about thermodynamics...
wa:-do
It's a pity some people here never heard about Cantú syndrom cos we could've chat about that in the "ape" evolution. Check this real disease photo:
http://books.dreambook.com/veekay/wolfboys.html
http://books.dreambook.com/veekay/wolfboys.html
Hawkings, Michio Kaku, Hoagland and every single one I mention is gonna be consider idiotic
Sorry, but its not my fault you chose kooks and cranks as your references. :roll:
And I didnt say Hawking and Kaku were idiotic. Please don't put words in my mouth.
As well, was there some point to posting those links? Do you agree or disagree with their content? What is the average velocity of an African swallow?
Isn't it Q'rius?
Only if your incapable of understanding.
Sorry, but its not my fault you chose kooks and cranks as your references. :roll:
And I didnt say Hawking and Kaku were idiotic. Please don't put words in my mouth.
As well, was there some point to posting those links? Do you agree or disagree with their content? What is the average velocity of an African swallow?
Isn't it Q'rius?
Only if your incapable of understanding.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
inca-- perhaps you were referring to the laws of entropy? One of the laws of chemistry we learned this year was that the entropy (or "disorder") of the universe always has a net increase with every reaction.
But this still doesn't work against evolution. It is also known that order can be created while ultimately the net disorder still increases.
So for example, if you have a bunch of small balls and a few large balls bouncing around a two-dimensional space, the disorder of the small balls will cluster the larger balls into one corner. The entropy of the system has increased in this way (because the small balls have more room for more randomness) but some order has been created (in the large balls clumped together).
So even if you were talking about entropy, it still doesn't disagree with evolution. Some order can be created as long as the net change in entropy is still positive.
But this still doesn't work against evolution. It is also known that order can be created while ultimately the net disorder still increases.
So for example, if you have a bunch of small balls and a few large balls bouncing around a two-dimensional space, the disorder of the small balls will cluster the larger balls into one corner. The entropy of the system has increased in this way (because the small balls have more room for more randomness) but some order has been created (in the large balls clumped together).
So even if you were talking about entropy, it still doesn't disagree with evolution. Some order can be created as long as the net change in entropy is still positive.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Inca
I have heard about the mexican wolf boys... they are the result of a rare genetic disorder... the mutant ressive gene is passed on by the mothers.
Danny and Larry Aceves are accomplished acrobats and are terrific spokesmen for thier condition... the elder brother Danny (I beleive) recently had a child of his own (2003?)who was born perfectly normal.
don't let their silky hair fool you, they have nothing more in common with 'ape men' than any other modern human.
wa:-do
I have heard about the mexican wolf boys... they are the result of a rare genetic disorder... the mutant ressive gene is passed on by the mothers.
Danny and Larry Aceves are accomplished acrobats and are terrific spokesmen for thier condition... the elder brother Danny (I beleive) recently had a child of his own (2003?)who was born perfectly normal.
don't let their silky hair fool you, they have nothing more in common with 'ape men' than any other modern human.
wa:-do
Communicatin breakdown with Mr. Anecdotic...Uhura says all frequences are jammed with him forever....
Mr. Spinkles, you're right, "some" order out of chaos can be expected. In fact I wrote about that in other issue about the Hebrew "beginning". Unfortunately evolution requires more than that due to the complexity of the living things. But at least you know is not enough setting an example of a bunch of balls. Evolutionists -who are defenders of "science"- have to prove the law of entropy applies wherever there's life. They are far from knowing this because even that science is not fully understood. Much less to "prove" it in evolution which is not a science!
Painted Wolf: Your post says <<don't let their silky hair fool you, they have nothing more in common with 'ape men' than any other modern human>> Glad you posted that. I set that exactly BECAUSE THE HAIRY THING OR APPEARANCE DOESN'T FOOL ME. They are not ape man or hominids. They never were. So my message to the readers is: DON'T LET NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC OR BBC FOOL YOU EITHER WHEN THEY HIRED ARTISTS AND IMAGINE SEVERAL "HAIRY" VERSIONS OF APE MEN (taken our of miserable fragments of incomplete bones) in order to deceive the public in their subconsciousness, setting images that step by step, little by little "transform" into an ordinary commom modern man. Every single book and magazine discussing evolution uses the same trick.
Mr. Spinkles, you're right, "some" order out of chaos can be expected. In fact I wrote about that in other issue about the Hebrew "beginning". Unfortunately evolution requires more than that due to the complexity of the living things. But at least you know is not enough setting an example of a bunch of balls. Evolutionists -who are defenders of "science"- have to prove the law of entropy applies wherever there's life. They are far from knowing this because even that science is not fully understood. Much less to "prove" it in evolution which is not a science!
Painted Wolf: Your post says <<don't let their silky hair fool you, they have nothing more in common with 'ape men' than any other modern human>> Glad you posted that. I set that exactly BECAUSE THE HAIRY THING OR APPEARANCE DOESN'T FOOL ME. They are not ape man or hominids. They never were. So my message to the readers is: DON'T LET NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC OR BBC FOOL YOU EITHER WHEN THEY HIRED ARTISTS AND IMAGINE SEVERAL "HAIRY" VERSIONS OF APE MEN (taken our of miserable fragments of incomplete bones) in order to deceive the public in their subconsciousness, setting images that step by step, little by little "transform" into an ordinary commom modern man. Every single book and magazine discussing evolution uses the same trick.
true blood
Active Member
(Q) said:
I would guess roughly 11 meters per second, or 24 miles an hour.
Great stuff Q.