Joined: Jan. 2006
|Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 13 2012,17:08)|
|Getting back to a regular DeNews story, Dense reports that one of her science news sources, a site named Creation-Evolution Headlines no less, cites a study that would imply that humans have descended from dogs, not monkeys as the darwinists try to tell us.|
In the study dogs outperformed chimpanzees in a certain type of intelligence test. Specifically, dogs understood the concept of (human) pointing (to indicate the location of food) better than the chimps.
This of course doesn't completely destroy darwinism, but creates a huge problem for it. Why? Because dogs don't have fingers!
|So dogs learned to detect a message using fingers, which they don’t have, but chimps, which have fingers, didn’t learn to detect the message? Jane Goodall, check YOUR messages.|
I tell you, man, evilution's days are numbered.
Yes, while we've been absorbed with Barry's flameout, Denyse has been steadily cranking out the tard, never failing to meet her quota.
A couple of days ago, in a post entitled Male snakes show mystical Darwinian knowledge?, Denyse quotes a Science Daily article:
|Large and older females, preferred by male snakes because they can produce more babies, also have a slightly different chemical signature in their pheromone. Young, small, females can still attract suitors, but not as readily.|
Denyse actually thinks the author is talking about a conscious calculation on the part of the male snakes:
|Male snakes clearly can’t tell a she from a he-on-estrogen, so what mystical Darwinian knowledge causes them to prefer a bigger female because she “can produce more babies”? They know? They care?|
You think they've found that selfish gene yet, Denyse?
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G
Please stop putting words into my mouth that don’t belong there and thoughts into my mind that don’t belong there. -- KF