You assume that that is what I meant, all I said that in this case ASD was attempting to construct an arguement based upon his thoughts and knowledge while you openly admitted yours was based on vanity...an emotion.

Funnily enough, about four months I had a debate which a creationist who happened to bring up many of the same "geologic anomalies," so luckily I have the refutations readily on hand

Not only was this hammer not documented in situ, the site in which it was discovered, but Carl Baugh, the creationist who trumped up this finding, even admitted that "hammer bearing nodule was not attached to the surrounding rocks of the creek" and "[t]he rock was sitting loose on a ledge and was not part of the surrounding ledge." Lastly, Baugh would not allow the hammer handle to be carbon dated, so its true age could not be verified. Check this link for more info:

The London Hammer

The refutation of the South African Spheres can be found here:

South African Spheres

Concerning, the human skeleton, it sounds suspiciously like the many other falsely claimed "anomalous fossils" such as Moab Man and Malachite Man. Details can be found here:

Anomalous Fossils

I haven't heard about the metallic tube, but considering the fact that your website derives its claims from the program Forbidden Archeology, I tend not to put much stock in it, considering that that particular program cites the Weekly World News ask breaking the sphere story. Here are some other "stories" from Weekly World News:

Not much, as you can see

There's a big difference between saying "pig hearts are the most successfully tranplanted in humans" and "humans are closer genetically to pigs than apes". Share homology is determined through camparisons of many genes, not just those that deal with specific organs, as far as I know. Of these comparisons, I have always read that humans share the greatest similarity with modern apes; so, how can I answer your question "why are pigs closer genetically to humans than apes?" when I've never seen it shown to be true?

oh fine than...i'll find something else than

*wraps Jordyn up in a big monkey hug*
If you met me you wouldn't be able to deny our ancestry.

I've heard the same deal about pigs. I think it's not only their compatibility with us,m but perhaps also their size. A chimp's heart would labour in a body our size and a gorilla is just a bit too big.

i believe they've tried baboon hearts...or was that just a christian slater movie?

oh quite contrary tentacle, i've met some men who could be considered rather neanderthalish, right down to three word grunts and swollen heads...is there a chance that there was another branch of evolution...that hasn't been discovered yet?

Definately agree with you on that Jordyn! I actualy considered this seriously for a while but it comes dangerously close to the Natzi studies that tried to seperate 'higher' races from 'lower'...best avoided I think! all I wished to consider was that it may not be a racial thing but there may be close knit groups within races that have not perhaps mixed as much geneticaly with the rest of earths population. However this 'inbreeding' red neck style (no offense Mr Red Neck) doesn't nessecarily mean loss of mental capacity as we think because genes are still fairly plentiful but as with the Inuit population it can lead to developing certain characteristics like thier extra layer of fat perhaps..hmm

The Smurfs were based on a real life example of inbreeding leading to an unusual genetic blueness (caused by lack of oxygen in the blood).

Hmm I'm going no further into controvercy.

i've never liked the smurfs...

Biggest flaw in evolution is this:
How does it happen? The actual changes, mind you. What triggers the overall changes that allows for natural selection? Nobody knows.

And if you say it "automatically happens via mutations" then how have we evolved so quickly via mutations? That'd be like getting a bullseye, while blindfolded, one hundred times in a row.

We don't evolve via mutation; mutation adds variation in the gene pool which nature selects for or against. Considering this, for what reason do you believe that we have evolved too quickly, as implied by your question, to be accounted for by this process? Also, evolution operates under more mechanisms than simply mutation and natural selection. Genetic drift is particularly significant; check this site:

Random Genetic Drift

Here is also a website concerned specifically with mutation, including rates of mutation among different species, and the chances of beneficial mutation:

Are Mutations Harmful?

Mutation are an inevitable and common occurance. While most mutations are not beneficial, those that are are selected for and increase in frequency generation to generation. Also, since evolution does not occur at the individual level, but the population level, beneficial mutations need not occur repeatedly on a single target, but any member of a population to change the genepool.

The theory of evolution is one of the most well-realized in science, and the mechanisms under which it operates well-understood.

probably one of the most misunderstood as well. a lot of people seem to think "evolution" means a creature physically changing into something different: fish growing legs, and things like that.

Question: How does the evolution occur? What causes the genes to alter in such a way that it will cause the next descendent to be different?

Also, buddo, your two links are to the same place.

Well, buddo, genes can mutate in several ways: there's replication errors, which can either rearrange nucleotide sequences or re-duplicate a section of the sequence; also, mutagens such as radiation and high-frequency light waves are a source. Ultraviolet light, for example, cause what is called "thymine dimers" which is a covalent link between adjacent thymine bases within a strand of DNA.

Oh, and here's the correct link to the piece on genetic drift:

Random Genetic Drift

*Just stares for quite some time at the genetic drift crap*

In English it means that the genes of today become the genes of tomorrow? Or what? It doesn't say how the genes themselves are altered...nor would your own beliefs on what could change them account for all the evolutions that have occured.

Especially since they've all proven to be quite nicely executed, versus turning some generations into monsterous deformaties with oddish things and whatnot.

well at some point fish needed to grow legs to walk on land, to then become mammals, to then grow hair and then to eventually evolve into ape like beigns over several million years...unless the apes that people believe are our ancestors came from...*shrugs* where else could life come from if not from a liquid?

As I said before, Miss(Mrs.?) Jordyn, the genes within the Human body change, but it is not explained how they manage to change toward the better, since any alteration during the existence of a creature's lifespan can be both considered an evolution and a mutation...yet as I said before it'd take forever to run through a huge gambit of evolution/mutational alterations and have them all arrive with us being as we are.

Simply put, it's too much of a coincidence that we managed to evolve so well so fast...something HAD to have guided the evolution.

i preferr miss, i don't sound so old that way

It means that in small populations, genes can become fixed, that means omnipresent in or completely absent from the gene pool, because they are passed down at different frequencies from one generation to the next.

I wasn't mean to. You seemed to be under the false impression that all evolution occurs through mutation. I linked the piece to show that significant cases of evolution can occur in the absence of both mutation and natural selection.

You shouldn't confuse your frustration with the literature with the quality of the literature itself.

Those were not my "own beliefs", but known processes by which mutations occur. And what basis do you make the judgement that such processes cannot account, just a hunch of yours?

Natural selection selects against harmful mutations, "deformities"; that is way species are well-suited to their environments.

Again, a mutation is not considered evolution; evolution occurs on the population level, not the individual level. And genes don't "manage" to change for the better. Mutation is a random process: some will be beneficial, some harmful, and most neutral. Nature selects the beneficial ones, that's why they're the ones that increase in frequency.

Again, just a hunch of yours? Anyway, 2.5 billion years seems like plenty of time to me.

An unsupported conclusion...