Astridhere
Well-Known Member
- Jul 30, 2011
- 1,240
- 43
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Alright, you keep insisting on "crazy algorithms", so let's talk about them now. What algorithms are those, specifically, and how are they flawed?
If you do not know then I am not going to educate you. Just for starters you lot have absolutely no idea what population size was and go with whatever makes your genetic bottlenecks work. That is just for starters with genomics, dating and comparisons. Insertion values are ties to the fossil record, hence your dates are changes with many new finds. Your comparisons ignore the differences and rely on similarities that are not similar at all but are hand waved away by sprooking insertions and deletions, meaning they are not 'the same' at all. Then of course there is the other excuse of genetic homoplasy. The there is hte fact that an ornag is more similar morphologically to mankind and does not align with genetic comparisons.
Then of course there is this.....The science behind reconstructions that are nothing more than flavour of the month...You can throw the strapping athlete, Turk, in as well.
Man's Earliest Direct Ancestors Looked More Apelike Than Previously Believed
Fraud and misrepresenation. Rudolf has had many face lifts over the years. Lluc was more flat faced than Rudolfensis and is just a non human ape.......Surprise!
Erectus looked like Lluc and that assertion is unfalsifiable
Nothing evolutionists produce is credible.
Last edited:
Upvote
0