That's the latest in evolution theory.
I suspect that what you think they're teaching is not actually what they're teaching. Unless this is some backwoods school?They were teaching my boys that right at South Ripley.
No. He's a geneticist. It says that right in the article. And what he's describing is not actually evolution.The leading evolutionary biologist came up with that one of that time. He may still be the top dog.
I guess you are behind on the times.
I've heard of the story. This is probably 10+ years old. I saw him on Jimmy Kimmel back when Jimmy Kimmel was watchable.So you are not read up I see.
'Humans evolved after a female chimpanzee mated with a pig'
The startling claim has been made by Eugene McCarthy, who is one of the world's leading authorities on hybridisation in animals.www.dailymail.co.uk
Now back to climate change.....
I believe the earth is still healing itself from the great flood.
Jeez. No wonder hydraulic fluid is so expensive.
Oh wait. You're serious. This is not the latest in evolution theory. It's not evolution. It's a hypothesis of hybrid breading.
I suspect that what you think they're teaching is not actually what they're teaching. Unless this is some backwoods school?
No. He's a geneticist. It says that right in the article. And what he's describing is not actually evolution.
I've heard of the story. This is probably 10+ years old. I saw him on Jimmy Kimmel back when Jimmy Kimmel was watchable.
This is a hypothesis about hybrid breading, it's not evolution. So where did the chimp come from that this pig allegedly ****ed? Other hybrids? Where did the pig come from? Other hybrids? So you think the theory of evolution is hybrids all the way down? No one believes this.
It's hard to take you seriously when you try to present this as current evolutionary theory.
I don't doubt that you believe this.
Recognizing that everyone has presuppositions that shape the way they interpret the evidence is an important step in realizing that historical science is not equal to operational science. Because no one was there to witness the past, we must interpret it based on a set of starting assumptions. Creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence; they just interpret it within a different framework. Evolution denies the role of God in the universe, and creation accepts God's role in the universe. - Roger Patterson
Ya think?This whole discussion boils down to none believer and believers views.