Fossil record puts a kink in evolutionary chain

[kasalt]

Research dates Homo habilis, Homo erectus to the same era:

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070809/NATIONWORLD/708090453/-1/LOCAL17

[them]

Implications of new early Homo fossils from Ileret, east of Lake Turkana, Kenya

Sites in eastern Africa have shed light on the emergence and early evolution of the genus Homo1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. The best known early hominin species, H. habilis and H. erectus, have often been interpreted as time-successive segments of a single anagenetic evolutionary lineage3, 7, 8, 9, 10. The case for this was strengthened by the discovery of small early Pleistocene hominin crania from Dmanisi in Georgia that apparently provide evidence of morphological continuity between the two taxa11, 12. Here we describe two new cranial fossils from the Koobi Fora Formation, east of Lake Turkana in Kenya, that have bearing on the relationship between species of early Homo. A partial maxilla assigned to H. habilis reliably demonstrates that this species survived until later than previously recognized, making an anagenetic relationship with H. erectus unlikely. The discovery of a particularly small calvaria of H. erectus indicates that this taxon overlapped in size with H. habilis, and may have shown marked sexual dimorphism. The new fossils confirm the distinctiveness of H. habilis and H. erectus, independently of overall cranial size, and suggest that these two early taxa were living broadly sympatrically in the same lake basin for almost half a million years. Etc.

The KNM-ER 42700 calvaria and KNM-ER 42703 partial maxilla.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7154/images/nature05986-f1.2.jpg
a, Anterior, b, left lateral, c, posterior, d, superior and e, inferior views of KNM-ER 42700 (scale bar, 5 cm). f, Anterior, g, occlusal and h, right lateral views of KNM-ER 42703 (scale bar, 2 cm).



1 Leakey, M. G. & Leakey, R. E. Koobi Fora Research Project Vol. 1 The Fossil Hominids and an Introduction to their Context 1968–1974 (Clarendon, Oxford, 1978)
2 Wood, B. Koobi Fora Research Project Vol. 4 Hominid Cranial Remains (Clarendon, Oxford, 1991)
3, P. V. Olduvai Gorge Vol. 4 The Skulls and Endocasts of Homo habilis (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1991)
4 Kimbel, W. H., Johanson, D. C. & Rak, Y. Systematic assessment of a maxilla of Homo from Hadar, Ethiopia. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 103, 235–262 (1997) | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
5 Bromage, T. G., Schrenk, F. & Zonneveld, F. W. Paleoanthropology of the Malawi Rift: an early hominid mandible from the Chiwondo Beds, northern Malawi. J. Hum. Evol. 28, 71–108 (1995) | Article | ISI |
6 Blumenschine, R. J. et al. Late Pliocene Homo and hominid land use from western Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Science 299, 1217–1221 (2003) | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
7 Howell, F. C. in The Cambridge History of Africa Vol. 1 From the earliest times to c. 500 BC (ed. Clark, J. D.) 70–156 (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1982)
8 Tobias, P. V. in Hominidae (ed. Giacobini, G.) 141–149 (Jaca Books, Milan, 1989)
9 Kimbel, W. H. Species, species concepts and hominid evolution. J. Hum. Evol. 20, 355–371 (1991) | Article | ISI |
10 Tattersall, I. Paleoanthropology: the last half-century. Evol. Anthrop. 9, 2–16 (2000) | ISI |
11 Vekua, A. et al. A new skull of early Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia. Science 297, 85–89 (2002) | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
12 de Lumley, M. A., Gabounia, L., Vekua, A. & Lordkipanidze, D. Human remains from the Upper Pliocene–Early Pleistocene Dmanissi site, Georgia (1991–2000). Part I. The fossil skulls (D 2280, D 2282 and D 2700). L'Anthropol. 110, 1–110 (2006)

[chattanova]

Check this out - Fossil Database

http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/

[them]

Check this out - Fossil Database

http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/

Thank you.

[romas]

Research dates Homo habilis, Homo erectus to the same era:

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070809/NATIONWORLD/708090453/-1/LOCAL17



We're sorry

The page you are looking for could not be found. It may have been removed, or is otherwise unavailable. Please report any dead links to us by filling out the form below.

:(

[grannymoose]

umm are these dates right was man here (6 million - 7 million) years ago i,m a little rusty on these dates here :/

[kasalt]

We're sorry

The page you are looking for could not be found. It may have been removed, or is otherwise unavailable. Please report any dead links to us by filling out the form below.

:(

Sry about the broken link. Here's a link to another article that contains much the same information:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070813093132.htm

[Anders Lindman]

# The Guardian,
# Tuesday April 29 2008

"It is common to depict the evolution of Homo sapiens as a straight sequence in which ape-like beings turn into upright, big-brained humans, a linear march that suggests humans were an inevitable biological outcome once apes had begun to walk on two feet. But the notion is misleading, say experts. As palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould once pointed out, we should not confuse evolution with progress: "Life is a copiously branching bush, continually pruned by the grim reaper of extinction, not a ladder of predictable progress."

In other words, our evolution was not a business in which one apeman species was replaced every so often by a new, improved version until, eventually, Homo sapiens appeared on the scene. It was a process of experimentation in which our hominid ancestors evolved in several different directions. Thus for the past 5m years there were usually several different types of hominid species competing with each other."

Full story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3?gusrc=rss&feed=science

[romas]

Sry about the broken link. Here's a link to another article that contains much the same information:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070813093132.htm


Thanks :)

[cruise4]

ERASMUS DARWIN

Those generally thought to be the founders of the theory of evolution are the French biologist Jean Lamarck and the English biologist Charles Darwin. According to the classic story, Lamarck first proposed the theory of evolution, but he made the mistake of basing it on the "inheritance of acquired traits." Later, Darwin proposed a second theory based on natural selection.

Though, here we must mention the name of another theoretician who played an important role in the origins of the theory of evolution: Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin's grandfather.

Erasmus Darwin was an eighteenth century contemporary of Lamarck. A physicist, psychologist and poet, he was recognized as an authority. His biographer, Desmond King-Hele even called him the greatest Englishman of the eighteenth century.99 But, Erasmus Darwin had a very dark private life.100

Erasmus Darwin is mainly noted as one of England's most prominent naturalists. As we said at the beginning, naturalism is a view that does not accept that God created living things. Actually, this view, which is close to materialism, was the starting point of Erasmus Darwin's theory of evolution.

In the 1780's and 90's, Erasmus Darwin developed the main outlines of theory of evolution, according to which all living things came from a single common ancestor by chance and according to the laws of nature. He did his research in an eight acre botanic garden he had prepared, and sought evidence that would prove his idea. He explained his theory in two books, entitled Temple of Nature and Zoonomia. Moreover, in 1784 he founded a society to manage the dissemination of his ideas, known as the Philosophical Society.

Years later, Charles Darwin would inherit his grandfather's ideas and the basic outlines for the proposal of his theory of evolution. Charles Darwin's theory elaborated upon the structure established by his grandfather, while the Philosophical Society became one of the greatest and most passionate supporters of his theory.

In short, Erasmus Darwin was the true pioneer of the theory we know of as the theory of evolution that has been propagandized throughout the world over the past 150 years.

Where did Erasmus Darwin discover the idea of evolution? Where did his interest in this subject come from?

After a thorough search for the answer to this question, we discover the interesting fact that Erasmus Darwin was a Mason. Though, Erasmus Darwin was no ordinary Mason, he was one of the highest ranking masters in the organization.

He was the master of the famous Canongate lodge in Edinburgh, Scotland. Moreover, he had close ties with the Jacobin Masons who were the organizers of the revolution in France at the time, and with the Illuminati, whose prime cause was fostering hostility to religion.103 That is, Erasmus Darwin was an important name in European Masonic anti-religious organizations.

(William R. Denslow, 10,000 Famous Freemasons, vol. I. Macoy Publishing & Macoy Supply Co., Inc. Ricmond, Virginia, 1957, p. 285)

Erasmus educated his son Robert (Charles Darwin's father), who too had been and made a member of the Masonic lodge.104 For this reason, Charles Darwin received the inheritance of Masonic teachings from both his father and his grandfather.

Erasmus Darwin hoped to have his son Robert develop and publish his theory, but it would be his grandson Charles who would undertake the enterprise. Although it came some time later, Erasmus Darwin's Temple of Nature was finally revised by Charles Darwin. Darwin's views did not have the weight of a scientific theory; it was merely the expression of a naturalist doctrine that accepts that nature has creative power.

MASONS AND THE NATURALIST PHILOSOPHY

As for the theory of natural selection that we supposed to be Darwin's one particular contribution, it too was merely a theory put forward earlier by a number of scientists. But, the scientists before Darwin's time did not apply the theory of natural selection as an argument against creation; on the contrary, they saw it as a mechanism designed by the Creator to protect the species from a hereditary distortion. Just like Karl Marx took the idealist Hegel's concept of "dialectics," and bent it to fit his own philosophy, so did Darwin take the theory of natural selection from creationist scientists and used it in a way so as to fit the idea of naturalism.

Therefore, Darwin's personal contribution in the formulation of Darwinism must not be overstated. The philosophical concepts he used were invented by earlier philosophers of naturalism. If Darwin had not proposed the theory of evolution, someone else would have. In fact, a theory very similar to his was proposed at the same period by another English natural scientist by the name of Alfred Russell Wallace; it was for this reason that Darwin was hasty to publish the Origin of the Species.

Finally, Darwin appeared at a stage when the long struggle had begun in Europe to destroy faith in God and religion, replace it with the naturalist philosophy and a humanist model for human life. The most significant force behind this struggle was not this or that thinker, but the Masonic organization, of which so many thinkers, ideologues and political leaders were members.

This fact was recognized and expressed by several Christians of the time. Pope Leo XIII, the leader of the world's Catholics, issued a famous bull in 1884, entitled Humanum Genus in which he made many important statements about Masonry and its activities. He wrote:

At this period, however, the partisans of evil seems to be combining together, and to be struggling with united vehemence, led on or assisted by that strongly organized and widespread association called the Freemasons. No longer making any secret of their purposes, they are now boldly rising up against God Himself.

...For, from what We have above most clearly shown, that which is their ultimate purpose forces itself into view-namely, the utter overthrow of that whole religious and political order of the world which the Christian teaching has produced, and the substitution of a new state of things in accordance with their ideas, of "new state of things in accordance with their ideas which the foundations and laws shall be drawn from mere naturalism." (Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus, "Encyclical on Freemasonry," promulgated on April 20, 1984.(emphasis added))

The important fact that Leo XIII stated in the above quotation is of the attempt to destroy completely the moral values provided by religion. What Masonry tried to do with the help of Darwinism was to produce a morally degenerate society that recognized no divine law, had no fear of God, and was susceptible to commit every kind of crime. What was meant above by "new state of things in accordance with their ideas which the foundations and laws shall be drawn from mere naturalism" is this kind of social model.

Masons, thinking that Darwinism could serve their goals, played a great role in its dissemination among the masses. As soon as Darwin's theory was published, a group of volunteer propagandists formed around it the most famous of whom was Thomas Huxley who was called Darwin's "bulldog." Huxley, "whose ardent advocacy of Darwinism was the single factor most responsible for its rapid acceptance" (Henry Morris, The Long War Against God, p. 60) brought the world's attention to the theory of evolution in the Debate at the Oxford University Museum in which he entered into on June 30, 1860 with the bishop of Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce.

Huxley's great dedication to spreading the idea of evolution, together with his establishment connections, is brought into further light according to the following fact: Huxley was a member the Royal Society, of one of England's most prestigious scientific institutions and, like nearly all the other members of this institution, was a senior Mason. (For Huxley's Masonry, see (Albert G. Mackey. "Charles Darwin and Freemasonry." An Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, New York: The Masonic History Company, 1921, Vol. III.) Royal Society or with the full name The Royal Society of London for The Improvement of Natural Knowledge was founded in 1662. All the members of the society were all Masons without an exception. See, John J. Robinson, Born in Blood, p. 285) Other members of the Royal Society lent Darwin significant support, both before and after the book was published. (For the support Royal Society gave to Darwinism, see Henry Morris, The Long War Against God, pp. 156-57) This Masonic society accepted Darwin and Darwinism to such an extent that, as with the Nobel Prize, Darwin's medal was awarded annually to a scientist deemed worthy of the honor.

In short, Darwin wasn't acting alone; from the moment his theory was proposed, he received the support that came from the social classes and groups whose nucleus was made up of Masons. In his book, Marxism and Darwinism, the Marxist thinker Anton Pannekoek writes about this important fact and describes the support lent to Darwin by the "bourgeoisie," that is, the wealthy European capitalist class.:

That Marxism owes its importance and position only to the role it takes in the proletarian class struggle, is known to all… Yet it is not hard to see that in reality Darwinism had to undergo the same experiences as Marxism. Darwinism is not a mere abstract theory which was adopted by the scientific world after discussing and testing it in a mere objective manner. No, immediately after Darwinism made its appearance, it had its enthusiastic advocates and passionate opponents. ...Darwinism, too, played a role in the class-struggle, and it is owing to this role that it spread so rapidly and had enthusiastic advocates and venomous opponents.

Darwinism served as a tool to the bourgeoisie in their struggle against the feudal class, against the nobility, clergy-rights and feudal lords...What the bourgeoisie wanted was to get rid of the old ruling powers standing in their way... With the aid of religion the priests held the great mass in subjection and ready to oppose the demands of the bourgeoisie...

Natural science became a weapon in the opposition to belief and tradition; science and the newly discovered natural laws were put forward; it was with these weapons that the bourgeoisie fought...

Darwinism came at the desired time; Darwin' s theory that man is the descendant of a lower animal destroyed the entire foundation of Christian dogma. It is for this reason that as soon as Darwinism made its appearance, the bourgeoisie grasped it with great zeal.

...Under these circumstances, even the scientific discussions were carried on with the zeal and passion of a class struggle. The writings that appeared pro and con on Darwin have therefore the character of social polemics, despite the fact that they bear the names of scientific authors... (Anton Pannekoek, Marxism And Darwinism, Translated by Nathan Weiser. Transcribed for the Internet by Jon Muller, Chicago, Charles H. Kerr & Company Co-operative Copyright, 1912 by Charles H. Kerr & Company, (emphasis added)
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/works/1912-dar.htm))

Though Anton Pannekoek, because he thinks in terms of Marxist class analysis, defines the force that spread Darwinism and put into effect an organized struggle against religion as "bourgeoisie," when we examine the matter in light of more historical evidence, we see that there was an organization within the bourgeoisie that used Darwinism to pursue their war against religion. That organization was Masonry.

Darwin's main book "Origin of Speices" actualy had a much longer title the full title was "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life" So you can see the Racist intentions right in the title, and in the book are many Racist and Sexist statements.

The whole Concept of "Survival of the Fittest" which is all thought Darwin's books is the Basic foundational philisophical principal behind Eugenics, People like Hittler and Margret Sanger simply saught to speed up the Proces by eliminating those they veiwed as "HUman Weeds"

We should never forget the influence of Sir Thomas Malthus on Darwin:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=17-06-032-f

Eugenocide
Darwinism & the Rise of German Eugenics

by Richard Weikart
Excerpt:
Quote
Darwin formulated his theory of natural selection after reading Thomas Robert Malthus’s famous Essay on the Principle of Population. Malthus observed that most organisms produce far more progeny than can possibly survive and argued that like other organisms, the human population tends to increase faster than the food supply, unless checked by other restraints (disease, war, etc.). Because of this imbalance between reproduction rates and food supply, Malthus believed that the vast majority of people must die without reproducing.

[cruise4]

http://www.statusviatoris.net/mediac/400_0/media/DIR_35401/king$2C$20tom.jpg

Pier De Chardin (Chardin de Charletan) a Jesuit preist and instrumental in two of the biggest hoaxes in evolutionary science, piltdown and peking primates.

Without Piltdown passed off as a missing link between man and ape for over 40 years before the hoax was revealed evolution would not be what it is today, institutionalized.

http://www.godweb.org/mycovers.gif

Neanderthal was studied first hand at the museum in France and orthodontic scans taken by Dr. Jack Cuozzo.
http://jackcuozzo.com/speech.html
audio interview
http://youtube.com/watch?v=dpIHOlu9JGQ

Caveman is a textbook fiction

[cruise4]

Evolution is an attempt to justify eugenics. That we need to be controlled in much the same way one would control cockroaches. Read this chapter of Weikart's book:
Eugenocide
Darwinism & the Rise of German Eugenics

by Richard Weikart

Darwinism was a matter of life and death, and no one understood this better than Darwin. Immediately after explaining that each organism “has to struggle for life, and to suffer great destruction,” he closed his chapter on “The Struggle for Existence” in On the Origin of Species on a more comforting note: “When we reflect on this struggle, we may console ourselves with the full belief, that the war of nature is not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply.”

This put a rather positive spin on the struggle for existence, the law, as he put it, “leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” Even while overtly denying any purpose or goal for evolution, Darwin could not resist the mid-Victorian cult of progress.

One of the alluring features of Darwinism, it seems to me, is that it offers a secular answer to the problem of evil and death. Indeed, it was more than an answer—it gave Darwinists hope and inspiration that suffering and death would ultimately spawn progress. Darwin clearly viewed death and destruction as an engine of evolutionary progress, as we see in the penultimate sentence of On the Origin of Species: “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.”

The Darwinian idea of death as a natural engine of evolutionary progress represented a radical shift from the Christian conception of death as an unnatural, evil foe to be conquered. This shift would bring in its train a whole complex of ideas that would alter ways of thinking about killing and the “right to life.”

Darwinian Theodicy

Darwin’s jubilation at the power of natural selection to wrest victory from the jaws of death is reminiscent of the biblical promise, “Death is swallowed up in victory.” In one respect, then, his theory of natural selection was a secular answer to Judeo-Christian theodicy (the justification of belief in a benevolent God in a world of evil), since it provided an explanation for the existence of evil and promised that evil would ultimately fulfill a good purpose.

In a speech in 1909 honoring Darwin’s hundredth birthday, a famous professor at the University of Munich expressed exactly this point. Max von Gruber opened his speech by countering the common misconception that nature is peaceful, harmonious, and idyllic. Rather, it is “filled with pitiless, gruesome struggle, with torment and death.” Darwin, he exulted, had discovered a rationale behind all this seemingly meaningless misery:

The never-ceasing struggle is, according to him [Darwin], not useless. It constantly clears away the malformed, the weak, and the inferior among the generations and thus secures the future for the fit. Thus only through the inexorable extermination of the negative variants does it provide living space for the strong and its strong offspring, and it keeps the species healthy, strong, and able to live.

Suffering and death, then, fulfilled a higher purpose: the preservation and advancement of all living beings. Even though Gruber thought human reason and pity could and should mollify the struggle among humans, Darwinism helped him find purpose and meaning in the mass destruction of other organisms.

Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life dominated European thought and law (though it was not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide. The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as “the right to life,” which according to John Locke and the Declaration of Independence was one of the supreme rights of every individual. This was reflected in European legal codes, which strictly forbade the acts the churches had forbidden.

Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, abortion, suicide, and now euthanasia. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death.

A New Conception

Darwinism transformed Western thinking about the value of human life by altering many influential people’s conceptions of the human position in the cosmos and in the organic world. First, the general idea of evolution reduced or eliminated the idea of a distinctive place or value for humanity in the cosmos.

In his 1904 book, The Wonders of Life, the influential German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel remarked that “the value of our human life appears to us today, on the firm foundation of evolutionary theory, in an entirely different light than it did fifty years ago.” He did not think human life particularly valuable in itself, nor did he think that all people had the same value. This point he had already expressed quite clearly in 1864 to his devout Christian father:

I share essentially your view of life, dear father, only I value human life and humans themselves much less than you. . . . The individual with his personal existence appears to me only a temporary member in this large chain, as a rapidly vanishing vapor. . . . Personal individual existence appears to me so horribly miserable, petty, and worthless, that I see it as intended for nothing but for destruction.

Haeckel and many other German Darwinists fought incessantly against all dualistic views of humans—the view that they have not only a body but also a mind—which endued human life with much greater value than that of animals. For Haeckel and most German Darwinists, humans were not much different from animals, and they often criticized Christians and other dualists for insisting on significant qualitative distinctions between humans and animals.

In rejecting mind-body dualism Haeckel explicitly denied the existence of an incorporeal human soul. He contended that all the activities traditionally ascribed to the human soul were nothing more than material processes originating in the central nervous system.

Despite his slippery use of religious terminology, Haeckel was clearly a reductionist who denied free will and insisted on mechanistic explanations for everything, including the human soul. Though Darwin was never as explicit as Haeckel in denying mind-body dualism (at least in his published works), he did nonetheless embrace reductionism by providing natural explanations for all human characteristics, including those traditionally considered unique aspects of the human soul or spirit, such as rationality, emotions, conscience, morality, and even religion.

The Species Continues

Haeckel was by no means alone in his sentiments. In 1880, the zoologist Robby Kossmann, who later became a professor of medicine, explained the implications of Darwinism for the significance of human life to a popular audience in his article, “The Significance of the Life of an Individual in the Darwinian World View.” Like Haeckel, Kossmann argued that Darwinism should revolutionize one’s entire worldview.

Evolution, he wrote, “tore down the boundaries between the animal and human world.” The Darwinian worldview subordinated the individual to the community, since all individuals necessarily perish—indeed myriads die before reproducing—but the species continues. This means that the value of an individual’s life can only be measured by its contribution to the welfare of the community. Kossmann pursued this logic relentlessly, explaining,

We see that the Darwinian worldview must look upon the present sentimental conception of the value of the life of the human individual as an overestimate completely hindering the progress of humanity. The human state also, like every animal community of individuals, must reach an even higher state of perfection, if the possibility exists in it, through the destruction of the less well-endowed individual, for the more excellently endowed to win space for the expansion of its progeny. . . . The state only has an interest in preserving the more excellent life at the expense of the less excellent (emphasis added).

Although far more humane in his ethical views than Haeckel or Kossmann, another leading Darwinist, Arnold Dodel, a professor of biology at the University of Zurich, also believed that Darwinism stripped humanity of the special status that religion had accorded it. Like Darwin and most early Darwinists, Dodel recognized that in order to persuade his contemporaries that humans had evolved from animals, he would have to reduce the distance between the two.

Humans (especially “primitive” people) had to become more animal-like, and animals more human-like. After examining the similarities of humans and animals in anatomy, embryology, and other fields, Dodel posed the question, “Is the human something special?” The answer, “founded on the scientific results of the last couple of decades,” he assured his readers, was “decisively: No!”

Well-Bred Humans

Many Darwinists agreed with Haeckel and Kossmann that humans could be reduced to animals, and quite a few reduced animals to their physical and chemical components. This kind of Darwinian reductionism was strongest among scientists and physicians, to be sure, but it had severe consequences for the value of human life when applied to human affairs. Eugenicists, for example, often compared the selective breeding of animals, which they saw as rational and scientific, with human reproduction, which seemed irrational and arbitrary.

The clear implication was that humans would be better off if they would treat each other the way they treat animals, at least in the area of reproduction. Sex was thus reduced to a mere biological function. The jurist and eugenicist Hans von Hentig, for example, stated, “The idea, though today it disgusts us, that one could breed humans, like we have bred other animals for the sake of certain useful characteristics, will become important, familiar, and fruitful.” Humans are, after all, the most useful creatures around, so why not act “scientifically” and breed them for desired characteristics?

Otto Ammon, a freelance anthropologist and early eugenics proponent, compared humans to animals with even more ominous overtones. He explained that “in every herd there are badly developed individuals.” After noting that animal breeders kill these individuals to keep their herd strong and healthy, he wrote in a passage dripping with irony:

With people a planned selection of this kind is not possible. We practice humanity, in that we chase the unfortunate individual out into the wide world and, pursued from place to place, let them perish gradually, or put them in institutions where they cannot cause any immediate damage. The prevention of their reproduction is an important interest of society, which may be opposed neither by legislation nor administration nor through private charity.

The irony is even more apparent in the original German, where the words for “chase” and “pursued” were words used commonly for hunting game. In this passage and elsewhere in his writings, Ammon portrayed humanitarianism as misguided and even cruel, a position not at all uncommon among social Darwinists and eugenicists.

Progressive Death

Not only did the general idea of biological evolution affect the way people thought about the value of human life, but Darwin’s particular theory of evolution by natural selection contributed to a devaluing of human life, too. This was the second way Darwinism altered many influential people’s conceptions of the human position in the cosmos and in the organic world.

Darwin formulated his theory of natural selection after reading Thomas Robert Malthus’s famous Essay on the Principle of Population. Malthus observed that most organisms produce far more progeny than can possibly survive and argued that like other organisms, the human population tends to increase faster than the food supply, unless checked by other restraints (disease, war, etc.). Because of this imbalance between reproduction rates and food supply, Malthus believed that the vast majority of people must die without reproducing.

Death—indeed mass death—was thus central to the Malthusian vision that Darwin appropriated and then propagated. T. H. Huxley’s biographer Adrian Desmond is not exaggerating when he claims that, according to Darwin’s theory, “only from death on a genocidal scale could the few progress.” To be sure, the struggle between organisms for existence is more often peaceful competition than bloody combat, but Darwin recognized that killing—even within species—is also a normal part of the struggle:

It may be difficult, but we ought to admire the savage instinctive hatred of the queen-bee, which urges her instantly to destroy the young queens her daughters as soon as born, or to perish herself in the combat; for undoubtedly this is for the good of the community; and maternal love and maternal hatred, though the latter fortunately is most rare, is all the same to the inexorable principle of natural selection.

Many German Darwinists, including Kossmann, argued that the mass destruction of organisms, including humans, showed that individual human lives were not really so important. In his 1878 Darwinian diatribe against socialist egalitarianism, Haeckel—basing his arguments forthrightly on the Malthusian element in Darwinian theory—argued that most humans necessarily perish in the struggle for existence. The more fit ones survive and reproduce, while the less fit die. Haeckel recognized that this vision of struggle might upset some people, but he affirmed it nonetheless:

The cruel and unsparing “struggle for existence,” which rages—and naturally must rage—everywhere in the biosphere, this unceasing and inexorable competition of all living creatures, is an undeniable fact; only the chosen minority of the privileged fit ones is in the condition to survive successfully this competition, while the great majority of the competitors must necessarily perish miserably. One can deeply lament this tragic fact, but one can neither deny it nor alter it.

Haeckel underscored his equanimity about the plight of unfit organisms, including the vast majority of humans, by ironically quoting the Bible. “Many are called,” he quipped, “but few are chosen!” Haeckel’s vision of evolutionary progress (just like Darwin’s) required incredible sacrifice—including multitudes of human sacrifices—since the survival of the chosen few means the “destruction of the majority.”

The Human’s Greatest Enemy

The physiologist Wilhelm Preyer, a colleague of Haeckel at the University of Jena, argued forcefully for the application of the Darwinian struggle for existence to human society. The Malthusian element of Darwin’s theory underlay his analysis of “Competition in Nature,” an article published in a popular journal in 1879. Because of scarcity, “the human’s greatest enemy is another human,” and “one part of humanity was, is, and always will be poor and sick, another part rich and healthy.”

Most of this article, as well as an earlier one on “The Struggle for Existence,” exuded optimism about the progress produced by competition. He admitted that competition was “life-destroying,” but found comfort in the thought that it was also “life-bringing.” Predictably, Preyer emphasized the beneficial aspects of competition much more than the death and destruction it wrought. Death, poverty, and misery were perhaps regrettable, but they had a purpose, for ultimately they produced progress.

Ludwig Büchner agreed with Haeckel that Darwinism had delivered the deathblow to the “anthropocentric fable,” that is, the notion that humans are the centerpiece of the cosmos. Büchner, one of the most prominent popularizers of Darwinism in Germany, contended that the vast expanses of time involved in evolution reduced the significance of the individual. “The individual is nothing in relation to the course [of time],” he wrote in 1882, “the species is everything; and history as well as nature mark every step forward, even the smallest, with innumerable piles of corpses.” In his vision of Darwinian evolution, multitudes die, and an individual’s death only has significance inasmuch as it promotes progress for the species.

Like Haeckel, Preyer, and Büchner, the Darwinian ethnologist Friedrich Hellwald applied the struggle for existence to humans. In his influential book, The History of Culture (1875), he saw the human struggle for existence as “the motive principle of evolution and perfection, in that the weak are worn down and must give place to the strong; so in world history the extermination of weaker nations by the stronger is a postulate of progress.” He evinced little sympathy for the downtrodden losers of the Darwinian struggle, for death is a fact of nature. Progress will come as the victors in the human struggle “stride across the corpses of the vanquished; that is natural law.”

Thus, for Hellwald and many other Darwinists, death was no longer an enemy, as Christianity portrayed it, but a force for progress. In the words of another Darwinist, death is “nothing but the inexhaustible source of continuous rejuvenation.” Not only did death foster progress, but, according to many Darwinists, the more death, the better.

Some Darwinists only implied this, but others, like Haeckel, clearly explained the Darwinian logic behind it. Natural selection can only function if there are variations, and the more individuals that are produced, the more variations there are likely to be. Also, more individuals competing among themselves tend to heighten the selective pressure. Thus, high reproduction rates should bring about more rapid evolutionary progress. But the greater the population pressure, the more individuals will necessarily perish before reproducing.

Pitiless Nature

By this logic, death is beneficial, since more deaths mean more progress. This mentality led many Darwinists and eugenicists to promote population expansion. Just before World War I, as German population growth was decelerating (the population was still increasing, but not as rapidly), leading eugenicists led a chorus of worried voices calling for measures to fight the declining reproduction rates.

The idea that the individual is far less important than the species was a common theme in the writings of German Darwinists around the turn of the century. It resonated with the growing popularity of collectivism and the decline of liberal individualism. This was an important move in devaluing the life of individuals, for their life was now considered valuable only to the extent that it contributed to the well-being of the entire community, which might mean all of humanity or might mean a particular race, depending on the particular evolutionist applying the principle.

One, in his zeal to synthesize Darwin and Nietzsche, stated the principle this way: “Humans belong to nature, just like plants and animals, and nature knows no pity. It brutally sacrifices the individual, in order to preserve the species.” Another concurred, stating that “the interests of the whole [species] must be placed above the interests of the individual. . . . In many cases the life of a single human is more important than that of several others.”

Another argued that evolution demonstrates “the overriding importance of the lasting community (the species) against the highly transitory individual.” For these Darwinists, individual life thus had no importance in and of itself. The individual’s welfare was subservient to that of the species.

In his book, Moses or Darwin?, Dodel stated that “death is the end of the individual, but it is also the greatest benefactor for the whole. Without death [there is] no progress, and progress is life; so the death of the individual is the condition of life for the whole.” He applied this principle to humans as well as other organisms. He further maintained that a proper understanding and relationship to nature—which he called “our mother”—would help people overcome their fear of death. In an earlier book, he had discussed the need for some animals—including “barbarian” people—to engage in violent competition for mates in order to reproduce. “So nature destroys,” he remarked, “in order to reproduce.”

Darwinism’s Child

By the beginning of the twentieth century, these Darwinian ideas about the value of life and death found fertile soil among scientists, physicians, and some social theorists, taking root and springing up as the eugenics movement. As all leading eugenicists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries confessed, the core idea of eugenics derived from Darwinism.

The physician and eugenicist Eduard David, a Social Democratic member of the German parliament, explained succinctly the connections between Darwinism and eugenics:

A strong counterbalance to the degenerative effect of this imbalance and atrophy of a people’s organic condition is the rapid death of the damaged individual, as well as any of its weak progeny. This process of natural selection is frustrated through institutions of social assistance, which aim at preserving the life of damaged organisms, allowing them to reproduce and also preserving the lives of their progeny with inferior health.

David’s fear that modern institutions, especially those motivated by compassion or humanitarianism, would produce biological degeneration was a commonplace lament among eugenicists.

Haeckel was one of the earliest German Darwinists to argue that helping the weak, sickly, and unintelligent might have ill effects, favoring them over the strong, healthy, and intelligent. Many Darwinists and eugenicists labeled any such tendencies “contraselective,” since they selected the “wrong” people. (Strictly speaking, the word makes no sense in the light of Darwin’s definition of fitness, since by definition those who survive are more fit.)

In 1870 Haeckel identified several causes of contraselection: modern medicine, clerical celibacy, and modern warfare. All three were artificial institutions either disadvantaging those with “good” biological traits or aiding those with “bad” characteristics. However, he was optimistic about the prospects for evolutionary progress and never lapsed into the gloom-and-doom of the fin-de-siècle prophets of biological degeneration. He believed that natural selection was a strong enough force to overcome these contraselective institutions.

August Weismann, a professor of biology at the University of Freiburg, then and now internationally known as one of the most famous Darwinists of the late nineteenth century, shared Haeckel’s general optimism that natural selection would counteract many of the ill effects of contraselective forces. Nonetheless he wrote an important essay in 1886, “On Regression in Nature,” pointing out that evolution does not always bring progress, since many organisms lose functioning parts and thus regress, as they adapt to different environments.

He explained that when an organism no longer needs a particular organ to survive and reproduce, there is no selective pressure for the organism to retain that organ, so over many generations, it gradually disappears. For example, a species of blind cave fish did not lose its sight from the direct influence of the environment or from disuse, but because its forebears didn’t need eyesight to survive and reproduce. This allowed individual fish with poorer and poorer eyesight to reproduce, ultimately leading to loss of function.

In applying these ideas to humans, Weismann claimed that uncivilized peoples have better senses of hearing, seeing, and smelling than do civilized peoples, who rely more on their mental acuity and technology. For example, wearing glasses encourages nearsightedness and dentistry promotes the development of weak teeth, so, because technology allowed those with poor eyesight and weak teeth to reproduce better than they could if left to their own devices, “in many respects the physical condition of civilized people has been worsened through civilization and will likely be worsened even more.”

Sinking Humanity

Darwinism contributed to new ways of thinking about life and death in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that often led the most avid Darwinists in Germany to devalue human life. This is not to say that everyone who embraced Darwinism denied the value of human life. Ideas about the sanctity of human life, ascendant for centuries in European thought, could not be swept away that easily.

One leading popularizer of Darwinism, Wilhelm Bölsche, even protested against the devaluing of human life that he saw in the writings of some of his fellow Darwinists. However, among leading Darwinists who saw Darwinism as the centerpiece of a new scientific worldview, his views on the value of human life did not predominate.

More Darwinists, in fact, took the opposing view, though few were as extreme as the racial theorist and Nietzsche enthusiast Heinrich Driesmans, who exulted in Darwinism as a Mephistophelean liberation from stultifying nineteenth-century humanitarianism in his book, Demon Selection: From Theoretical to Practical Darwinism (1907). Driesmans called Darwinian selection a “scientific demon,” since it functions “to eliminate gradually and to exterminate those who become weak.”

According to him, Darwinism “brought us knowledge, that if not all, at least much of the human misery that we tried to help, was declining life, determined by nature to be eliminated, in order to make room for the healthier, and that one does a service neither to the latter nor to the former if one prolongs its sickliness.” The lesson Driesmans and others drew from Darwinism was that the healthy should eliminate the unhealthy.

Adam Sedgwick, Darwin’s mentor in natural science at the University of Cambridge, had foreseen something like this, and expressed his fear poignantly in a letter to Darwin in 1859, shortly after reading On the Origin of Species. “Passages in your book . . . greatly shocked my moral taste,” he explained.

There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly. ’Tis the crown and glory of organic science that it does, thro’ final cause, link material to moral. . . . You have ignored this link; and, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it possible (which, thank God, it is not) to break it, humanity, in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it, and sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history.

Richard Weikart is associate professor of modern European history at California State University, Stanislaus. “Eugenocide” is a shortened version of a chapter of his From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (Palgrave Macmillan), which includes the extensive source notes. Information about the book can be found at www.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/FromDarwintoHitler.htm.

[cruise4]

There have been no transitional fossils found only hoaxes, a favorite technique to fool unsuspecting pupils is to coordinate ape skulls of different ages(of the specimen) in such a manner they look as though they are evolving when actually they are just young to old. Another method of deception of these "educators" is to keep the skulls and fossils locked away only bringing out plaster cast, often fictional, such as are in museums.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/166/406164154_c97928ecf8_o.jpg

Neandertal is a problem for evolution having a larger cranium. We are devolving since the flood. Everything preflood was larger and lived older.


An obvious computer rendition. All evidence disappeared in WWII, only alleged plaster cast remain.
www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=43
In communist China, where this peking "man" was found in 1921, there is a world heritage site and a university named after this "man". Chairman Mao began his communist organising in 1920.
www.worldheritagesite.org/sites/pekingmansitezhoukoudian.html

It's like something straight off the Planet of the Apes.

[cruise4]

The Fossil Record refutes Evolution
http://www.designanduniverse.com/articles/fossil_records.php

Check this site, it is Very good on pointing out the TRUTH about evolution.
http://www.designanduniverse.com/index.php

The Real Ideological Root of Terrorism: DARWINISM and MATERIALISM
http://www.designanduniverse.com/articles/darwinism_and_materialism.php


Evolution as a concept of advancement from one state to another is a correct one. Everything in our world changes, except of the unchangeable which is God. God is perfect and therefore does not need to evolve, it's the only constant, ever, anywhere.

Darwinism is (Evolution + agenda, lies, manipulation, control and all the other crap you can think of) this is actually a cult based on "scientific" approach. Cult is (Truth + Lies), the most sophisticated ones are on a religious basis and use mostly truth on first stages of "conversion" (getting control) of it's victims. They base they control on belief and things you can not check. Later they teach you that there are certain questions you can't simply ask and must accept them on a blind faith basis, things you can't question + always be in the surroundings of like minded individuals(to minimize the chance of someone else pulling out you of their claws).

Doesn't the Darwinian "scientific community" of today resemble such a worldwide cult?

There are also some bold real scientists that have the pragmatic approach of REAL evolution. If they find something that's fishy they want to move forward and enhance some fields of understanding and theories, of course even if they succeed in proving of disproving anything that's not so in line with the orthodox view they are labeled as "lunatics" by the "scientific community" for political reasons of trying to question the "unquestionable facts".

Darwinism as a cult is easily can be seen of what it really is. It simply takes checking the what Darwin himself said and the overwhelming evidence we have today to see that he was wrong in his theory.

[cruise4]

Piltdown Man

The "Piltdown Man" is a famous hoax consisting of fragments of a skull and jawbone collected in 1912.

The significance of the specimen remained the subject of controversy until it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan combined with the skull of a fully developed, modern man.

The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous archaeological hoax in history. It has been prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of human evolution, and the length of time (more than 40 years) that elapsed from its discovery to its exposure as a forgery.
Piltdown Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Without this hoax (read:LIE) evolution never would have caught on to be the institution it is today, by the time the lie was exposed evolution was being taught in all the universities.

One of many hoaxes in the history of the evolutionary model taught as fact in schools today.


Does carbon dating prove the Earth is millions of years old?
Author: Dr.Kent Hovind

Whenever the worldview of evolution is questioned, this topic always comes up. Let me first explain how carbon dating works and then show you the assumptions it is based on. Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays back into normal, stable nitrogen. Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. This is called the half-life. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only ¼ of the original C-14. It goes from ½ to ¼ to 1/8, etc. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950's. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today (about .0000765%), is assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breath CO2 and animals eat plants. Carbon 14 is the radio-active version of carbon.

[cruise4]

Bored now... there's endless reasons that Darwinian Evolution is total nonsense!

You may find this thread interesting:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25236&highlight=Childress

Check out 'Lloyd Pye - Everything you know is wrong'

Available from http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/index.html

[them]

Bored now... there's endless reasons that Darwinian Evolution is total nonsense!

There are also endless reasons why it isn't nonsense.

Some of the information you have posted is laughable, anybody who has studied any of the biological sciences from A level onwards should have learned enough investigative skills to independently research & understand why evolutionary processes exist. Darwin’s predictions continue, to this very day, to come true. How could he have known?

It's going to take me a few days to put some information together that’s coherent and simple enough to allow those who wish to independently investigate evolution on planet earth to do so.

Until then here's a clue, we have always been human.


Peppered moth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[cruise4]

"Until then here's a clue, we have always been human."

Exactly, never amoebas, never monkeys, always human. Even Darwin towards the end, from what I can gather, doubted his own conclusions. First time I ever heard this theory I intuitively knew it wasn't right, like Vast Oil Deposits from Vegetation. There is adaptation to a changed environment, which I gather is called micro-evolution (which smacks of desperation labelling to me, like Global Warming to Climate Change), and adaptation makes sense. But evolution of a species? Sorry, I do not think I will ever be convinced. Common Sense tells me its nonsense!

[wwu777]

Check out these videos debunking Evolution:

Part 6 Macro Evolution (1/3) Evolution Debunked - YouTube

Evolution Debunked - YouTube

Debunking Evolution Part # 1 Variations in species - YouTube

Debunking Evolution Part #2 Mutations Reproduction - YouTube

Scientists present proof of intelligent design

Part 1 of 7:

Scientists presents Proof of Intelligent Design ! Charles Darwin - Origin of Species - Evolution Disproved, Refuted by Biologists and Scientists from Cambridge, Chicago, Munich universities ! Creation proved by Scientists ! Part 1 / 7 - YouTube

Here are some more videos I found.

After 150 years of fossil digging, no transitional fossils have been found, thus Darwin's own fears (written in his own book) about being proven wrong by lack of transitional fossils, has materialized.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

"Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells. In these clips several experts and biologists explain why random mutations are NOT advantageous and how antibiotic resistant bacteria are actually proof against evolution, not for it. It's very interesting.

The "Icons of Evolution" Documentary Part 3 - YouTube

The "Icons of Evolution" Documentary Part 4 - YouTube

This clip explains how Evolution cannot explain the Cambrian explosion, and thus their textbooks ignore the event altogether since it doesn't fit in to their theory. In fact a Geologist in China made some discoveries that refute Darwinian evolution.

The "Icons of Evolution" Documentary Part 5 - YouTube

[wwu777]

DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED
http://www.vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html

Debunking Evolution:
problems, errors, and lies exposed,
in plain language for non-scientists
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

I just don't see how all the beauty and order around me is due to random mutations only.

Why does nearly every living being have two eyes, one mouth, one nose, two ears, etc.? How can that be a coincidence?

Besides, how can consciousness arise out of the unconscious dead matter of the universe? It just doesn't make sense.

To Atheists and Evolutionists:

Do you ever consider that there might be order at a level that is beyond your perception and mind?

[oakwise]

Piltdown Man

The "Piltdown Man" is a famous hoax consisting of fragments of a skull and jawbone collected in 1912.

The significance of the specimen remained the subject of controversy until it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan combined with the skull of a fully developed, modern man.

The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous archaeological hoax in history. It has been prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of human evolution, and the length of time (more than 40 years) that elapsed from its discovery to its exposure as a forgery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

Without this hoax (read:LIE) evolution never would have caught on to be the institution it is today, by the time the lie was exposed evolution was being taught in all the universities.

One of many hoaxes in the history of the evolutionary model taught as fact in schools today.


Does carbon dating prove the Earth is millions of years old?
Author: Dr.Kent Hovind

Whenever the worldview of evolution is questioned, this topic always comes up. Let me first explain how carbon dating works and then show you the assumptions it is based on. Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays back into normal, stable nitrogen. Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. This is called the half-life. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only ¼ of the original C-14. It goes from ½ to ¼ to 1/8, etc. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950's. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today (about .0000765%), is assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breath CO2 and animals eat plants. Carbon 14 is the radio-active version of carbon.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


in response to the comment in red: evolutionary thinking had probably already become an established paradigm by 1912 (amongst the intellectual elite of the western factions, at the very least). See Marxism, Fabianism, eugenics.

I believe the 'evolution' paradigm has both a good and bad side. And Darwin's work may not be perfect, but it is a great theory which he tested and re-tested, and has since been proven correct in many areas.

[decim]

Malthusion...

only the chosen minority of the privileged fit ones is in the condition to survive successfully this competition, while the great majority of the competitors must necessarily perish miserably. One can deeply lament this tragic fact, but one can neither deny it nor alter it.

Haeckel underscored his equanimity about the plight of unfit organisms, including the vast majority of humans, by ironically quoting the Bible. “Many are called,” he quipped, “but few are chosen!” Haeckel’s vision of evolutionary progress (just like Darwin’s) required incredible sacrifice—including multitudes of human sacrifices—since the survival of the chosen few means the “destruction of the majority.”

The Human’s Greatest Enemy

www.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/FromDarwintoHitler.htm.

[wwu777]

Can any Darwinists here explain this?

Why does nearly every living creature on Earth have two eyes, one mouth, one nose, and two ears? How can that be a coincidence?

[free_thinker]

Can any Darwinists here explain this?

Why does nearly every living creature on Earth have two eyes, one mouth, one nose, and two ears? How can that be a coincidence?

2 eyes are required to produce vision with depth perception. try closing 1 eye and see how much harder it is to judge distance to an object.

2 ears on either side of head allow you to work out which direction noise is coming from, handy to avoid predators.

Only 1 mouth is required to eat and only 1 nose to smell anything extra is a waste of resources.

Hope that helps.

[rhydra]

Some people have the crazy notion that the Earth is round and that it isn't supported by giant turtles, what fools!:D

[dan duchaine]

Great posts cruise4, keep them coming.