Science and Technology : Distant Human Ancestor Had Shark Head

In the Spirit of Sankofa,




... Well for one, you didn't quote anyone just dropped information. But the answers are simple, if these are the questions:




Everybody knows or should know the Dogon are black people. My friend, Music Producer, loved them and spoke often about them... Also, many others are in the thread, and could easily answer, why you ask me, lol?

Peace In,

It's your thread and you still haven't answered any of the questions, just tried to put it off on M.P. (who hasn't been here in ages) to wiggle your way out. I didn't ask you if the Dogon were black and there aren't 'many others' in this thread, only a few who have posted to it...smh

What's wrong, you don't want jamesfrmphilly to really see how much of an 'evolutionist' a non-evoltionist can be?
 
In the Spirit of Sankofa,




... You are definitely in Your Lane, posting pictures:picture: , a thing you love, which is good... thanks :toast:



Peace In,

Now how would you know that if you don't read/follow me as you claim??

I got another one just for you:

stealourideas1.png
 
I'm not suspecting your ability to comprehend. I was suspecting that scientific journalism can get a lot lost in translation. If I thought you couldn't comprehend it, I wouldn't have said to read the original paper. What sense would that make?

Then you assumed that I did not read the original articles when, in fact, I did. -- I read both of them in their entirety, not just the excerpts posted by Bro. Clyde....Therefore, nothing was "lost in translation." The articles were both quite PLAIN in proclaiming and detailing how science attributes human evolution to these extinct shark-like fish.-- The "scientific journalism" and jargon was quite easy to comprehend. My summation, succinctly, mirrors the articles.


I'm a little suspicious about your understanding of evolution in general, but I'm cool with disagreeing about the unlikely narrative your faith provides.

"Unlikely" does not equate to impossible.
 
...If the articles are unclear or foggy, it usually make sense to try to run down the original paper.

"Try to run down the original paper?!" --- lol--- These articles QUOTED some leading science researchers who ALL espouse the same thing as the articles stated: HUMANS and all living VERTEBRATES today EVOLVED from these shark-like fish.

There is nothing "UNCLEAR or FOGGY" about that.

There is nothing "LOST IN TRANSLATION via SCIENTIFIC JOURNALISM."

So, again, just because I disagree with this macroevolution of humans from fish, that has NO bearing on my UNDERSTANDING of what BOTH articles stated:

....When tetrapods finally recovered, those survivors were likely the great-great-grandfathers to the vast majority of land vertebrates present today, including humans.

The study was published in the May 17 online issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
http://www.livescience.com/6481-fishy-origins-humans-revealed.html

...The study also revised the relationships between early gnathostomes, or vertebrates with jaws (whose members range from fish and sharks to birds, reptiles and humans), and the most primitive members of that group, armored fish called placoderms
 

Donate

Support destee.com, the oldest, most respectful, online black community in the world - PayPal or CashApp

Latest profile posts

HODEE wrote on Etophil's profile.
Welcome to Destee
@Etophil
Destee wrote on SleezyBigSlim's profile.
Hi @SleezyBigSlim ... Welcome Welcome Welcome ... :flowers: ... please make yourself at home ... :swings:
Back
Top