The belief that a lost rib, or a cut-off thumb, or a chopped-off tail, could pass from parent to child was a theory, long-discredited, derived from the ideas of French biologist Lamarck.
Generations of Jewish, Muslim, and Christian males have circumcised their sons, but they never give birth to already circumcised sons.
For centuries some breeds of dogs have had their tails cropped, but they don't give birth to pups with their tails docked already.
If you have a finger or toe amputated, it would not mean you would produce children with a finger or toe missing. Likewise, if a human baby is born with a tail, it does not imply they evolved from monkeys.
So a rib taken from Adam does not mean that any of his sons and daughters would have a rib missing. Men and women have the same number of ribs.
http://www.creationtips.com/ribs.html
The baby born with a tail is no evidence of evolution or that he was a reincarnated Hindu god.
As biologist Dr. Gary Parker once said about these fatty tumor tails: “So far as I know, no one claims we evolved from an animal with a fatty tumor at the end of its spine.”
Originally posted by RJHinds The belief that a lost rib, or a cut-off thumb, or a chopped-off tail, could pass from parent to child was a theory, long-discredited, derived from the ideas of French biologist Lamarck.
Generations of Jewish, Muslim, and Christian males have circumcised their sons, but they never give birth to already circumcised sons.
For centuries some breeds of d ...[text shortened]... nimal with a fatty tumor at the end of its spine.”
http://www.creationtips.com/babytail.html
The Christians wouldn't link talkorigins and deleted the link when someone tried to post it. Pansies.
Originally posted by RJHinds The belief that a lost rib, or a cut-off thumb, or a chopped-off tail, could pass from parent to child was a theory, long-discredited, derived from the ideas of French biologist Lamarck.
Generations of Jewish, Muslim, and Christian males have circumcised their sons, but they never give birth to already circumcised sons.
For centuries some breeds of d nimal with a fatty tumor at the end of its spine.”
http://www.creationtips.com/babytail.html
What on earth are you talking about?
Evolution theory doesn't claim nor predict that a non-genetic characteristic of an individual such as an amputated tail would be passed on to its offspring or evolve into its descendants so what you say here is irrelevant.
Originally posted by RJHinds The belief that a lost rib, or a cut-off thumb, or a chopped-off tail, could pass from parent to child was a theory, long-discredited, derived from the ideas of French biologist Lamarck.
Generations of Jewish, Muslim, and Christian males have circumcised their sons, but they never give birth to already circumcised sons.
For centuries some breeds of d ...[text shortened]... nimal with a fatty tumor at the end of its spine.”
http://www.creationtips.com/babytail.html
hehehe. you have absolutely zero knowledge about evolution.
Originally posted by humy What on earth are you talking about?
Evolution theory doesn't claim nor predict that a non-genetic characteristic of an individual such as an amputated tail would be passed on to its offspring or evolve into its descendants so what you say here is irrelevant.
It doesn't work the other way around either. That is pure crap, too.
Originally posted by humy What is this “the other way around” that you are referencing here? And the “other way around” to what?
-oh, I forget; you like talking crap.
That is being born with an extra appendage, like an arm, finger, toe, leg or even a head is no proof for evolution. It's all crap.
Originally posted by RJHinds That is being born with an extra appendage, like an arm, finger, toe, leg or even a head is no proof for evolution. It's all crap.
How does being born with two heads, like you, have anything to do with evolution. That has everything to do with mutations.
Originally posted by sonhouse How does being born with two heads, like you, have anything to do with evolution. That has everything to do with mutations.
That is what the OP is all about. It is not proof of evolution as some think. It has nothing to do with evolution other than it is not evidence for evolution. Do you agree?
Proof of evolution???
08 May '12 13:46
Back to Top