Earliest apelike human ancestor disproved?

Other animals do, you just chose to be ignorant of that argument. Other animals with varying ecological niches and variations in body plans don't but no one who understands evolution would expect every animal to evolve the same tactic. There is no evidence and it requires double conjecture There is evidence, but again, that doesn't get in the way of creationists does it. And it isn't taken as gospel. Sure all this has been explained to you before. the only evidence of bio-genesis is some scientists took some died cell and brought it back to life. a true test would be to throw a bunch of chemic... [More]

the only evidence of bio-genesis is some scientists took some died cell and brought it back to life. a true test would be to throw a bunch of chemicals into a pool and see what happens. no wait that would just prove intellegent design because we throw the right chemicals in make life as we know it. no you would have to throw a bunch of atoms into a pool and let it bring life forth. but then again where did the atoms come from in the first place. i know the big bang. but what was here before the big bang. not space or time. so to really do this experiment you would have to start with nothing an... [More]

Wow, that is a whole lot of wrong. Naturally forming biochemicals support abiogenesis too. And NO IT WOULD NOT PROVE INTELLIGENT DESIGN, serious any one who says that should be forced to redo high school science because it was clearly wasted upon them...... how many times do you have to be told? I know it is easier not bothering to learn anything, but reiterating your ignorance on these subjects. Intelligent design would be if we deliberately made the DNA and the life, not mixing chemicals to see what may happen. Wilful ignorance is inexcusable daniel. you mean that if we mixed the right chemi... [More]

you mean that if we mixed the right chemicals together that makes life that wouldn't be intellegent design. then i am going to start a new thread called what if a planet was alive. No it isn't. This has been explained numerous times previously.

people who want to remain ignorant to support their ideas always will remain ignorant. they have to be open minded to learn.

people who want to remain ignorant to support their ideas always will remain ignorant. they have to be open minded to learn. . i agree mattshark needs to open his mind

i agree mattshark needs to open his mind A fifth grade retort to go with your fifth grade knowledge of biology.

A fifth grade retort to go with your fifth grade knowledge of biology. i am open minded. but not gulliable. the only links he ever posted for abio genesis was were they had taken either a dead cell or one they had killed replaced the insides and brought it back to life. later in the same link they state that at times cells will just come back to life without all of that. but in no way does it prove life from nothing. that is abio-genesis has to prove.

i am open minded. but not gulliable. the only links he ever posted for abio genesis was were they had taken either a dead cell or one they had killed replaced the insides and brought it back to life. later in the same link they state that at times cells will just come back to life without all of that. but in no way does it prove life from nothing. that is abio-genesis has to prove. That is patently not true at all. I posted plenty showing how recreated historical atmospheres on earth can lead to the natural formation of biological molecules.

Daniel, please stop. You are embarrassing the rest of us. Mattshark, please don't reply to him. Believe me: every single semi-intelligent person reading this thread laughs at Daniel's nonsense, and you don't need to waste time with him: He's a lost cause. He's not here to debate, he's not here to discuss, and most importantly, he is certainly not here in learn. Don't try and force him to do any of these things, as he simply won't.