Search results

how about an answer to the question of what happened to all the 15 or so species and genera discussed in the article? extinct pre or post flood and how can you tell?

“invented”? not really the correct word. but rather than quibble over your word choice—-the Smithsonian article referenced a number of hominids ancestral to H. sapiens—-what is your explanation for those creatures? and, did they become extinct before or after the flood?

no but that’s ok. have a nice life

no and no. your glaring failure to understand basic science is obvious.

Hannah Arendt was correct. One only needs to listen to DJT to see the truth in her statement. That is his game plan---to do what he wants, what benefits DJT, not you. If you believe otherwise, please reread the Arendt quote.

7, the Gibbons article is 14 years old and perhaps some of those referenced have moved on but a quick google search suggest that C. Owen Lovejoy mentioned in the article is still at Kent State. Give him a call. I'll be he would be delighted to hear from you

oh my, is this a clue that you really did not read the article? Gibbons wrote an article for Smithsonian summarizing the work of the scientists who found the fossils, analyzed them and were authors of papers in scientific journals. so yes, contact one of the authors of the original papers who...

of course not. it seemed to be what 7 took from the article. i suggested he contact the authors to see if his reading was accurate. chances he will do that??

7 it appears you have some issues with reading comprehension. please direct me to the specific language in the article that suggest the earliest hominids appeared fully formed with arms, legs, etc. Are you suggesting the scientists who did the work suggested that? Here’s a thought—-google them...

False on several levels. 1. the Smithsonian article did not say that, The Smithsonian article was discussing hominids. It made no reference to single celled organisms.. If you can show me where in the article it suggested otherwise, feel free to do so.Or are you suggesting that the science...

7 is simply wrong. H. sapiens appeared roughly 300,000 years ago.

Why do you even bother to comment on something like this article when you have. apparently, no acceptance of basic science?

What else would you expect from a right wing, covid conspiracist. lover of old Latin mass.

Traitor donny was beloved by the nyc tabloids because he sold newspapers. Likely started when DoJ sued Donny and daddy tor racial discrimination in renting apartments. ahh that pesky weaponized Nixon justice department

Since my screen name is in honor of my granddaughter who died suddenly at 8.5 months, I don't think you deserve any response to anything from here on. But have a nice life, it is the only one you get and when it is over---that's it.

awww

try to read the book. why should i do all thw work for you? does your mommy do your homework for you?

i suspect the book might be too difficult for you, has lots of genus and species names that are hard to pronounce. clearly you have zero science background or interest

Yes, the book (an the evidence it presents) concludes that fish are the ancestors of humans. Since you are clearly way beyond me in the ability to write short pithy posts just get on with your life. In the meantime, if you bothered to investigate who knows what might happen. However, the book...