The Reptilian RL Iksar Thread!

[Scrooge]

Originally Posted by valarmorghulis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No sorry I don't feels because what you just said is completely retarded. The only thing a reptile can produce is more reptiles. They can't evolve into another creature. If it's a frog now, it will always be a frog and has always been a frog. Frog's can only produce more frogs and frogs can only come from other frogs. If it's a snake now, it will always be a snake and has always been a snake. Snakes can only produce more snakes and snakes can only come from other snakes.

The same goes for literally every single living thing on this planet. Every living thing can only produce more of what it already is. Birds make more birds, dogs make more dogs, cats make more cats etc. This can be broken down even further. For instance a blue jay can only produce more blue jays and a blue jay can only come from previously existing blue jays. A German shepherd can only produce more German shepherds and can only come from previously existing German shepherds. A tiger can only produce more tigers and tigers can only come from previously existing tigers.

Sorry but no, we did not evolve from reptiles. In fact, reptiles have never evolved into anything other than more reptiles.

We didn't evolve from apes either, like the majority of the population STILL believes, they think just because it's written in a school or University book, then it must be true!

However, for the sake of a discussion, if we DID evolve from apes, why are the apes still around again?? The evolution theory is about survival of the fittest, so if we had evolved from apes, the apes would no longer be around, if we stick within the boundaries of the theory to begin with.

[Rhambuk]

hilarious this guy puts people on ignore that ridicule his beliefs while he turns around and does the same thing...

[rgostic]

Originally Posted by Scrooge [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

However, for the sake of a discussion, if we DID evolve from apes, why are the apes still around again?? The evolution theory is about survival of the fittest, so if we had evolved from apes, the apes would no longer be around, if we stick within the boundaries of the theory to begin with.

Ever heard of the term tree of life?

When a tree sprouts a branch, what happens to the trunk?

[Scrooge]

Originally Posted by rgostic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ever heard of the term tree of life?

When a tree sprouts a branch, what happens to the trunk?

Vegetation and Mammals are two very different things, wouldn't you say?!

[Rellapse40]

Originally Posted by valarmorghulis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No sorry I don't feels because what you just said is completely retarded. The only thing a reptile can produce is more reptiles. They can't evolve into another creature. If it's a frog now, it will always be a frog and has always been a frog. Frog's can only produce more frogs and frogs can only come from other frogs. If it's a snake now, it will always be a snake and has always been a snake. Snakes can only produce more snakes and snakes can only come from other snakes.

The same goes for literally every single living thing on this planet. Every living thing can only produce more of what it already is. Birds make more birds, dogs make more dogs, cats make more cats etc. This can be broken down even further. For instance a blue jay can only produce more blue jays and a blue jay can only come from previously existing blue jays. A German shepherd can only produce more German shepherds and can only come from previously existing German shepherds. A tiger can only produce more tigers and tigers can only come from previously existing tigers.

Sorry but no, we did not evolve from reptiles. In fact, reptiles have never evolved into anything other than more reptiles.

Just b/c your christian beliefs may not support this does not mean we did not evolve from reptiles.

The oldest most primitive part of our brain has reptilian in it's name.

If there were never people thinking outside the box (like you) and believed in just shit they can see. The world would still be flat.

[Scrooge]

Originally Posted by Rellapse40 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The world would still be flat.

You know what's interesting about that is, that there is this "Flat Earth" theory going around, where they claim to prove that the Earth isn't actually a ball - but a conclave instead. It's circular, but not an actual "ball" so to speak, or so the theory states.

They actually present some hard to deny evidence of this too, it does sound silly, but wtf do we really know? Only what we've been told all our lives, without any concrete evidence. I don't know if it's bullshit or not, but I think it's interesting enough to research nonetheless, just like the Reptilian Humanoid theory this thread is (or was?) about.

Watch this series of videos (they're short), and let me know what you think! For those who like to dismiss information without first checking it out, these videos involve one of NASA's own, spilling the beans on what we think of as pure conjencture.

"Proof the Earth is Flat, NASA lies!" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ih_Qq-WBYY
Part 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmUrUrWmmaA
Part 3 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvQowaN6UHQ
Part 4 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqj7fNaw8-Y
Part 5 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAnfhm4ZZ-4

[valarmorghulis]

Originally Posted by Rellapse40 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Just b/c your christian beliefs may not support this does not mean we did not evolve from reptiles.

The oldest most primitive part of our brain has reptilian in it's name.

If there were never people thinking outside the box (like you) and believed in just shit they can see. The world would still be flat.

Has nothing to do with my beliefs whatsoever. It has everything to do with facts. We did not evolve from reptiles and just because someone decided to say we have a reptilian part of the brain doesn't mean we actually do. All it means is that we have a part of the brain which is responsible for more instinctual actions like a reptiles.

Also ROFL at your last sentence. You do realize that being able to observe something is a fundamental requirement of science right?

Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Notice how it says observation AND experiment? It's rather important because if it can't be observed then it isn't science. Show me an experiment of a reptile producing something other than a reptile please? Oh it takes millions of years and therefor isn't observable so you can't actually show anyone that it can actually happen? How convenient. However and unfortunately for you, it's not science by the very definition of the word.

You don't understand the implications of sexual reproduction.

Your idea doesn't hold water because only asexual organisms are clones of their parents.

If you cannot grasp how populations can change over time due to variance in the size and shape of an organisms body parts in response to changing environmental conditions you have not been educated sufficiently.

Speciation has been observed and studied in the field.

Read "The Beak of the Finch".

Sorry but you're wrong. Nobody argues that populations can change over time, that's rather obvious. However, what is argued is the extent to which a population can change. No living thing can change into a different kind of organism than what it is. I've read "The Break of the Finch" but guess what, they are all finches. This is microevolution. Nobody argues that finches can appear differently from one to the next but finches are ALWAYS going to be finches. Much like how no two snow flakes are ever the same, no life form is ever the same. Even "identical" twins are never the same. Show me a finch producing something that isn't a finch or show me something that isn't a finch producing one. That would be the version of evolution you falsely think exists.

[Rellapse40]

Originally Posted by valarmorghulis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Has nothing to do with my beliefs whatsoever. It has everything to do with facts. We did not evolve from reptiles and just because someone decided to say we have a reptilian part of the brain doesn't mean we actually do.

prove it

[rgostic]

Originally Posted by valarmorghulis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sorry but you're wrong. Nobody argues that populations can change over time, that's rather obvious. However, what is argued is the extent to which a population can change. No living thing can change into a different kind of organism than what it is. I've read "The Break of the Finch" but guess what, they are all finches. This is microevolution. Nobody argues that finches can appear differently from one to the next but finches are ALWAYS going to be finches. Much like how no two snow flakes are ever the same, no life form is ever the same. Even "identical" twins are never the same. Show me a finch producing something that isn't a finch or show me something that isn't a finch producing one. That would be the version of evolution you falsely think exists.

Your brain doesn't comprehend the scale of geologic time.

Whenever a physically distinct portion of a population begins to mate exclusively with itself in order to preserve a morphological advantage, a new species is born.

With enough time and enough change, eventually the classification system which humans created to name and sort the organisms we observe will dictate that a particular population can no longer be called a finch.

Environmental conditions cause patterns to form in the variance of a new generation's physical traits.

You are being fooled by both your inability to think on a time scale which dwarfs your existence and the categorical classification systems our biologists created to make sense of the continuum which describes these natural processes.

Evolution doesn't occur at the snap of a finger.

[rgostic]

Originally Posted by valarmorghulis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No sorry I don't feels because what you just said is completely retarded. The only thing a reptile can produce is more reptiles. They can't evolve into another creature. If it's a frog now, it will always be a frog and has always been a frog. Frog's can only produce more frogs and frogs can only come from other frogs. If it's a snake now, it will always be a snake and has always been a snake. Snakes can only produce more snakes and snakes can only come from other snakes.

The same goes for literally every single living thing on this planet. Every living thing can only produce more of what it already is. Birds make more birds, dogs make more dogs, cats make more cats etc. This can be broken down even further. For instance a blue jay can only produce more blue jays and a blue jay can only come from previously existing blue jays. A German shepherd can only produce more German shepherds and can only come from previously existing German shepherds. A tiger can only produce more tigers and tigers can only come from previously existing tigers.

Sorry but no, we did not evolve from reptiles. In fact, reptiles have never evolved into anything other than more reptiles.

You don't understand the implications of sexual reproduction.

Your idea doesn't hold water because only asexual organisms are clones of their parents.

If you cannot grasp how populations can change over time due to variance in the size and shape of an organisms body parts in response to changing environmental conditions you have not been educated sufficiently.

Speciation has been observed and studied in the field.

Read "The Beak of the Finch".