evolution

if evolution is true, i believe that most everyone has it wrong. if anything, man did not come from monkeys, man came from reptiles. when a baby is in a womb, it is in an egg; a soft one that is almost sack-like and full of water. it hatches inside of the womb which is what you would call "the water breaking". an embryo has gills while in the womb, much like some reptiles who can breathe in water and on land; it only grows the lungs when it is born. finally, if you look at your fingers and spread them out, you will see they are webbed slightly like a reptile's would be.
edit: any thoughts?

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
if evolution is true, i believe that most everyone has it wrong. if anything, man did not come from monkeys, man came from reptiles. when a baby is in a womb, it is in an egg; a soft one that is almost sack-like and full of water. it hatches inside of the womb which is what you would call "the water breaking". an embryo has gills while in the womb, muc ...[text shortened]... em out, you will see they are webbed slightly like a reptile's would be.
edit: any thoughts?

EV you need to get out a little more ...

Let's check this all out:
1. Man didn't evolve from monkeys. Follow the family tree back a bit (20 million years perhaps) and you find that man and monkeys share a common ancestor. This doesn't mean one descends from the other.
2. All mammal young start in eggs, so in a sense we're all evolved from reptiles, but that's not disputed anyway. Reptiles are seen as the progenitors of mammals.
3. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is sometimes called the biogenetic law. It describes how the growing embryo retraces evolutionary history as it develops. It's pretty much a myth though. Certainly the human embryo NEVER has gills. The ridges on an embryo that look like gills actually become part of the face as the embryo develops and they never operate as gills. Lung development occurs from the first 8 or so weeks - well before birth. In fact, if the baby only developed lungs after birth you and I wouldn't be here, since lungs take a little more time to grow than we'd need.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
if evolution is true, i believe that most everyone has it wrong. if anything, man did not come from monkeys, man came from reptiles. when a baby is in a womb, it is in an egg; a soft one that is almost sack-like and full of water. it hatches inside of the womb which is what you would call "the water breaking". an embryo has gills while in the womb, muc ...[text shortened]... em out, you will see they are webbed slightly like a reptile's would be.
edit: any thoughts?

Oh, and many mammals have webbing between their fingers and toes.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
if evolution is true, i believe that most everyone has it wrong. if anything, man did not come from monkeys, man came from reptiles. when a baby is in a womb, it is in an egg; a soft one that is almost sack-like and full of water. it hatches inside of the womb which is what you would call "the water breaking". an embryo has gills while in the womb, muc ...[text shortened]... em out, you will see they are webbed slightly like a reptile's would be.
edit: any thoughts?

Well, we do share a common ancestor with the ape and monkey family tree but that ancestor also developed from older animals, like the ancestors of the reptiles in the much distant past.

It's true that a lot of embryos in the womb are actually impossible to tell apart though until much later in their development cycle. This makes me think that one of the things which hasn't altered/evolved that much is the way in which animals give birth and develop in the womb.

Edit - actually amannion explained my first paragraph much better than me while I was still struggling writing it 🙂

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
if evolution is true, i believe that most everyone has it wrong. if anything, man did not come from monkeys, man came from reptiles. when a baby is in a womb, it is in an egg; a soft one that is almost sack-like and full of water. it hatches inside of the womb which is what you would call "the water breaking". an embryo has gills while in the womb, muc ...[text shortened]... em out, you will see they are webbed slightly like a reptile's would be.
edit: any thoughts?

I bet you think snakes evolved from earthworms too!

Originally posted by amannion
EV you need to get out a little more ...

Let's check this all out:
1. Man didn't evolve from monkeys. Follow the family tree back a bit (20 million years perhaps) and you find that man and monkeys share a common ancestor. This doesn't mean one descends from the other.
2. All mammal young start in eggs, so in a sense we're all evolved from reptiles, but ...[text shortened]... you and I wouldn't be here, since lungs take a little more time to grow than we'd need.

ok i did not realize that it was established that mammals came from reptiles

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
ok i did not realize that it was established that mammals came from reptiles

You should try checking out some facts away from this forum. Most of us are crusty old folks set in our ways. You still have a chance to develop some ideas of your own, but you need some unbiased sources of information ...

Originally posted by amannion
EV you need to get out a little more ...

Let's check this all out:
1. Man didn't evolve from monkeys. Follow the family tree back a bit (20 million years perhaps) and you find that man and monkeys share a common ancestor. This doesn't mean one descends from the other.
2. All mammal young start in eggs, so in a sense we're all evolved from reptiles, but ...[text shortened]... you and I wouldn't be here, since lungs take a little more time to grow than we'd need.

This is just as ridiculous as EV's post. No offence EV.
How on earth do you scientist types keep coming up with this claptrap.

"Follow the family tree back a bit (20 million years perhaps) and you find that man and monkeys share a common ancestor."

Where's the missing links in the fossil record?

"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is sometimes called the biogenetic law. It describes how the growing embryo retraces evolutionary history as it develops"

You scientist just make this stuff up as you go along don't you. It sounds so "scientific" one can hardly argue with it. Intellectual elitist snobbery.

Don't think I don't know what it means either. I've been listening to this stuff for decades.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
ok i did not realize that it was established that mammals came from reptiles

It's not ESTABLISHED EV. Don't fall for it!

Originally posted by josephw
This is just as ridiculous as EV's post. No offence EV.
How on earth do you scientist types keep coming up with this claptrap.

"Follow the family tree back a bit (20 million years perhaps) and you find that man and monkeys share a common ancestor."

Where's the missing links in the fossil record?

"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is some nk I don't know what it means either. I've been listening to this stuff for decades.

How on earth do you scientist types keep coming up with this claptrap.

By the process that gives scientists their name...science. You know, that thing that led to the computer you're typing on?

Where's the missing links in the fossil record?

That's a popular phrase among Creationists...but what does it mean? The question assumes facts and ideas that I am not aware of. What's a "link" and which of these "links" are missing?

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
if evolution is true, i believe that most everyone has it wrong. if anything, man did not come from monkeys, man came from reptiles. when a baby is in a womb, it is in an egg; a soft one that is almost sack-like and full of water. it hatches inside of the womb which is what you would call "the water breaking". an embryo has gills while in the womb, muc ...[text shortened]... em out, you will see they are webbed slightly like a reptile's would be.
edit: any thoughts?

There are no reptiles that can breathe water.

Originally posted by josephw
This is just as ridiculous as EV's post. No offence EV.
How on earth do you scientist types keep coming up with this claptrap.

"Follow the family tree back a bit (20 million years perhaps) and you find that man and monkeys share a common ancestor."

Where's the missing links in the fossil record?

"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is some nk I don't know what it means either. I've been listening to this stuff for decades.

You scientist just make this stuff up as you go along don't you. It sounds so "scientific" one can hardly argue with it. Intellectual elitist snobbery.

Don't think I don't know what it means either. I've been listening to this stuff for decades.

What's it mean? I don't like jargon used aggressively to intimidate people either, but I discuss why. For example, I had a long discussion with bbarr about philosophy terminology; I can find the thread for you if you want. I suggested it's possible he might be hiding behind jargon so I systematically asked him about the words he was using, analyzing them with other online sources and then challenging him and asking for a response.

You simply dismiss scientific terminology and imply some kind of secret knowledge of our heretic scientist ways or something. Spit it out. What do you understand?

You claim to know what something means because of your decades of experience, but you claim that this "something" was made up as "we went along". Make up your mind.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]How on earth do you scientist types keep coming up with this claptrap.

By the process that gives scientists their name...science. You know, that thing that led to the computer you're typing on?

Where's the missing links in the fossil record?

That's a popular phrase among Creationists...but what does it mean? The question assume ...[text shortened]... d ideas that I am not aware of. What's a "link" and which of these "links" are missing?[/b]

sci·ence /ˈsaɪəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

The operative word here is "facts".

All you "scientist" have here is theory and conjecture.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]You scientist just make this stuff up as you go along don't you. It sounds so "scientific" one can hardly argue with it. Intellectual elitist snobbery.

Don't think I don't know what it means either. I've been listening to this stuff for decades.

What's it mean? I don't like jargon used aggressively to intimidate people either, but I discu ...[text shortened]... you claim that this "something" was made up as "we went along". Make up your mind.[/b]

If you understood what you read then you would know what I mean.

Originally posted by josephw
sci·ence /ˈsaɪəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or ...[text shortened]... e operative word here is "facts".

All you "scientist" have here is theory and conjecture.

"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is sometimes called the biogenetic law. It describes how the growing embryo retraces evolutionary history as it develops"

You scientist just make this stuff up as you go along don't you. It sounds so "scientific" one can hardly argue with it. Intellectual elitist snobbery.

Don't think I don't know what it means either. I've been listening to this stuff for decades.

Thats what you wrote. Now you claim to know the definition of "science". I don't think you're lying about that, but I don't see how it follows from my question.