thought i would do some research for you ludwig
so went to the same link as the last post[only last time it was an index] but check it out now
http://toarchive.org/
even
http://toarchive.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
dosnt work anymore[error 404][LOL}

see these people hate losing[this is those nutters YOU think is god]

anyhow i was going to use the lnks to expose your eucalypt delusion[so far as it 'evolving' from algae]lol

but what the heck remain decieved

you dont got any idea how it is important for people to think [trust] science[not god]dont you see santa[god replacement
evolution god replacement
even your very onwn links get replaced[at whim]
your case is not proven

i will let you guys figure the game out for yourselves
how many more links will be removed[its like i said, when they lose they just delete the proof]

yet my quotes remain[noting these links WERE your own links]
i didnt take them out[but their proof is not proof]#you clever people just believe as you chose

any more links?
WORKING ONES [LOL}

Talk Origins is having some technical difficulties at the moment, so some of the links may not work. I REALLY REALLY dont think they're trying to hide anything from you OUG... lol...as if... OUG - blinkers OFF!

Try this...for your reading pleasure ;-)

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=other-resources-for-defen

Happy holidays.

trickker[latest link;found this
>>[The_Human_Pedigree:A Timeline of Hominid Evolution...>>this TIMELINE?>>[LOL}

>>..in Archaeology&Paleontology#The Human Pedigree:A Timeline of Hominid Evolution]..years after unearthing the'first'human fossil, paleontologists have amassed a formidable record of our forebears[By Kate Won..Homo habilis..First found:..[Significance:The first hominid known to have made stone tools>>wow'great'timeline FOR'EVOLUTION[not]

>>Open question:This poorly known species closely resembles Australopithecus and might actually belong in that genus..>>WOW'MIGHT'[how convincing[lol]

<<When Charles/Darwin..,pondered the evolution of organisms ranging from orchids to whales.Conspicuously[missing from his magnum opus,however,was any substantive discussion of how humans..might'have arisen.

He wrote only“light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history.”[lol]Scholars attribute Darwin’s relative silence on this matter to..>>>lol<<..ThomasHuxley,the biologist otherwise known as“Darwin’s bulldog,”had no such reservations....in which he explicitly applied Darwin’s..theory..of evolution to humans,..arguing..that we had descended from apes.>>>ARGUEING;[NOT PROVIN

<<..Eight_years_later;Darwin himself,possibly'encouraged'by Huxley’s effort,wrote The Descent of Man.In it he declared the chimpanzee and gorilla our closest living relatives based on anatomical similarities and predicted<<declared-not proof=LOL<<that the earliest ancestors of humans would turn up in Africa,where our ape kin live today.At the time,only a handful of human fossils were known—all of them Neandertals from sites in western Europe...>> http://www.creationtips.com/neanderthal.html

>>Since then, abundant evidence from fossils and genetic analyses has validated Darwin’s claims.<<[ie,,He wrote“light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history.”[lol]Scholars attribute Darwin’s relative silence on this matter..LOL

<<We now'know'?that our closest living relative is the chimpanzee and that humans arose in Africa between five million and seven million years ago,>>DO WE KNOW?[why arnt they proving it?[if they claim to;know']

>>..after our lineage diverged from that of the chimp.We have also learned that for much of human prehistory,our predecessors shared the planet with one or more other hominid species.>>YEP[NEAnderthal]

>>.Indeed,far from being a linear succession of increasingly upright creatures,the human family tree contains many dead branches.>YOU STILL HAVNT PROVED A TREE

>>The story of our origins is far from complete.<<LOL>> Paleontologists are eager to find fossils of the last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans,for example...Many such mysteries about our collective past persist.Darwin’s insights will no doubt continue to light the way to solving them.>>lol}

'check-out'this'PROOF'yourself
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-human-pedigree

OUG, the point of my last post was to indicate that I’m still here keeping an eye on this thread, but that I felt that there was just no point in adding anything further to the discussion.

However, in summary do have a little bit more to add:

I want to say that I think it is good that you have explored evolution in relation to Eucalyptus to some extent as a result of my comments….and it is good that you are delving into this whole subject in quite some depth.

What is really strange is that, after all the stuff that you have posted on this thread, you still apparently completely poo-poo evolution.

Keep at it. I humbly fee that sooner or later, you will come to accept evolution, and the original autogenesis, as factual.

You know, the eucalypts really did evolve from plants that are of the same sort of thing as some of today’s algae.

Cheers

Aaargh. The eucalypts and all flowering plants and indeed all vascular plants did evolve from plants that WERE of the same sort of morphology as some forms of algae extant to day.

thanks for your thoughts ludwig
i'believed;'evolution for most of my'life'but when i tested it [repeatedly]there is just too much'authoritive'-'proof',that is neither authoritive[nor proof]

we are talking about the whole of human evolution life'term[yet failing to validate the theory into a science,if we are 'the clever animal',how clever does that sound[that we alone not know our creator,actually think a living computer can build itself by chance[lol]

we have a small thing like the twisting of a clam[or a bone in the eardrum taking place over millions of years]yet hyper'human evolution a mere 80-to-100,000 years ago

we have an average cellular mutation rate at the rate of billions in our trillions of cells,yet basiclly all are yet 80-90 percent THE SAME,and by and large many of these TRANSCRIPTION errors are self correcting

with the millions of life forms science has recorded NOT ONE complete authoritive concensus validation of 'evolution' has managed to change its genus

i have expressed my doudts and am often called by insulting names by those acusing'me'of not doing the study,telling me im closed minded for simply pointing out there is no infallable proof,thus there is no science,life is much more complicated[and the answer much more simple than people can accept]

we have no problem thinking[by chance this amasing abiogensis of a'first'life could'spontainiosly occur]but a'god'creating it exceeds human comprehention,even when'god-like'beings,fail repeatedly to do it[even under'perfect'lab conditions];is avoiding of belief in god[as the creator of this miracle of life]thus we miss the even more amasing things this amasing life is able to reveal

i can but say if the dude is wearing clothes,im not seeing them,please describe why?[not with logic but science]im not getting any pleasure[ok maybe a bit]in revealing those'facts'arnt really validating the theory[and as life'creates'life[for fact]this making of life from non-life is a mathimatical absurdity.

i really would accept CONCLUSIVE proof were any offered[but even then they would also need to rebut god as being sepperate from his creation]but the theory is so full of holes that this'god-free'theory fails its own science faulsification[yet mere children claim it science,if the spiritual consequences wernt so severe it would be laughable.