szesan
New member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2011
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Hungarian
- Home Country
- Hungary
- Current Location
- Hungary
Hi everyone!
I would like to ask a favor from the community.
Unfortunately I dont know any native english speaker personaly, so I thought I ask for help here.
I study computer science and paleontology is my hobby. Using my knowledge about genetic algorythms and prehistoric animals I've created a theory which matches the reality much better than anything I have encountered so far. After I shared my theory with my friends they convinced me that it's an idea worth spreading so i made a website. (degenerationtheory dot weebly dot com)
My problem is that i don't want to risk the credibility of my theory with my poor english. I tried my best but my English is still not enough for a scientific debate.
I would appreciate if someone could correct the errors I made and mybe rephrase my weird structures and sentences if necessary.
Thank you in advance!
here is the content of my website:
I would like to ask a favor from the community.
Unfortunately I dont know any native english speaker personaly, so I thought I ask for help here.
I study computer science and paleontology is my hobby. Using my knowledge about genetic algorythms and prehistoric animals I've created a theory which matches the reality much better than anything I have encountered so far. After I shared my theory with my friends they convinced me that it's an idea worth spreading so i made a website. (degenerationtheory dot weebly dot com)
My problem is that i don't want to risk the credibility of my theory with my poor english. I tried my best but my English is still not enough for a scientific debate.
I would appreciate if someone could correct the errors I made and mybe rephrase my weird structures and sentences if necessary.
Thank you in advance!
here is the content of my website:
Introduction
The degeneration theory is an improved version of Darwin’s hypothesis. It’s save to say that every evidence of his theory also supports the degeneration concept while all the flaws of evolution are actually strengths of degeneration. In fact, the majority of material evidences of evolution are misinterpreted proofs of degeneration. Darwin created a wonderful hypothesis but unfortunately it isn’t at all supported by fossils, so instead of trying to interpret fossils as they could fit in the theory we should listen to what they actually say. This is exactly how the degeneration theory was born.
The degeneration theory is based on the following thesis: Every form of life is originated from a superior form, which implies that every living being can be derived from one of the few distinct initial genera. Applying this thesis on vertebrates means the following:
Every vertebrate and chordate animal is degenerated from a highly complex common ancestor (an initial vertebrate) according to the given environmental conditions.
To make it simple: we are not evolved from fish but degenerated from “birds”. Of course those “birds” were very much different from modern birds, but they had wings and laid eggs. The following coherent reasoning presents the facts and tendencies leading to this conclusion.
Transitional fossils
The lack of convincing transitional fossils has always been a huge drawback of the evolution theory. The transition from fish to tetrapods is a crucial element yet there is no convincing fossil evidence to support this transformation. On top of that, the pure existence of snakes proves the improbability of such change. Snakes had lost their legs for a reason. They teach us something about evolution. They teach that slithering or snake-like motion is much more effective than using little legs which are in a vestigial/undeveloped stadium. Swimming as a motor-coordination is way closer to slithering than walking so there is an extremely higher probability for a creature which switches from aquatic to terrestrial life to slither than to attempt “walking”. (Can you imagine that a tictaalik would try to crawl on its tiny, slippery fins instead of simply slithering?) Slithering predators wouldn't let any animal develop legs. Snakes show us exactly what happens when a certain species switches to terrestrial life after spending a long period of time swimming.
The tictaalik is supposed to use its fins to crawl then walk instead of slither like snakes do.
The final judgement over the earlier theories about this transition was a quite recent finding. In 2010, tetrapod footprints were found in Poland which were securely dated at 10 million years older than the oldest known elpistostegids (fishapods). This finding undisputable proves the failure of all the previous conceptions and dates.
In the January of 2010 the evolution theory with all its hypotheses and dates literally collapsed.
The importance of this information can’t be overreacted. This changes everything. Four legged terrestrial vertebrates were walking on the earth more than 400 million years ago. Everything that evolutionist scientists stated earlier about tetrapodomorpha, fishapods, elpistostegids and the corresponding dates has proven to be fundamentally wrong.
While the transition from fish to tetrapods is still (or again) doubtful, we don’t have to prove how easily a four limbed creature can degenerate into a fish-like animal. Ironically evolutionists often use the “transformation” of cetaceans as an evidence of evolution when the question of transitional fossils sets forth. This is an obvious case of misinterpreted evidences. The possibility to change from tetrapod to aquatic form doesn’t imply it can happen vice versa. The snakes prove it can’t. These kinds of changes are irreversible.
There are bigger problems than the lack of transitional fossils though: we can’t speak about gradient transition across the timeline either. According to the advocates of evolution, first vertebrates appeared ca 500 million years ago and the earliest tetrapods appeared more than 400 million years ago. They must have had all the limbs, joints, muscles, lungs, functions and features that would require perspicacious explanations. No such drastic structural change happened since then (during the past 400 million years), and no change that would necessarily need long series of beneficial mutations. The theory of punctuated equilibrium was born as recognition of this serious problem. And then the dinosaurs “appeared”. No matter how desperately evolutionists try to describe dinosaurs as they were primitive reptiles, they appeared way too early and they were way too complex than they could fit in the evolution theory.
Dinosaurs
The animals we call reptiles these days have little to do with dinosaurs. Dinosaurs might have laid eggs and some of them might had scales, but recent studies prove they might have been warm blooded as well, and the bones of dinosaurs more closely resemble those of mammals and birds than reptiles. If this wouldn’t be enough, a whole new concept of feathered dinosaurs is arising. More than 20 genera of dinosaurs have been discovered to have been feathered. Still calling them reptiles is very misleading, because most people associate this word with primitive, undeveloped, small brained, cold blooded animals.
Feathered dinosaur
There is also a common misconception about dinosaurs having walnut sized brain and being less intelligent than an average crocodile. Actually the Tyrannosaurus Rex for example had bigger brain than humans and recent studies suggest most dinosaurs had roughly the same intelligence as of average birds and mammals in the present. The previous estimations about their intelligence were based on the false assumption that as modern reptiles their brain occupied only around 50 percent of the endocranial volume. This assumption has proven to be wrong.
Calling them reptiles and all the other misinformation about these animals serve one purpose: hiding the fact there was no progressive evolution during the past 250 million years. Considering the 400 million years old tetrapod footprints it becomes questionable if there was a progressive evolution ever at all.
The hair/fur of mammals is a simplified, degenerated version of feathers, theria (live birth) is also a simplified, less save and less effective way of reproduction than laying eggs, and about lactation; we cant be sure at all if dinosaurs had lactation or not.
Apparently scientists don’t want to admit this, but we have dreadfully little information about these animals. They are still the greatest mystery of biology and history. Examining their bones can bring up many interesting questions though. Why were they so enormous, why was bipedalism so common amongst them? The members of Sauropodomorpha (one of the oldest group of dinosaurs) were bipedal as well and they dropped on all fours eventually. The same tendency seems to stand out as in the case of transition between fish and tetrapods. What made these huge animas erect on two legs and why modern animals don’t seem to progress this way? According to the degeneration theory the answer is simple: They had never walked on four, because their forelimbs used to be wings. Both feathers and skeletal structures support this concept. Not to mention the lack of a convincing theory for the evolution of flying. There are a bunch of complicated and smart theories on this subject, such as the cursorial theory, the wing-assisted incline running and the arboreal theory. None of them is supported by fossils and each of them has a very low probability against degeneration. As an example; according to evolutionist biologists bats had been evolved from shrews. Let’s imagine that transition with any of the flying theories above and compare the probability with the answer of degeneration. The degeneration says a population of bats had become overweighed so their wings became useless and disappeared over the ages, so thus shrews came to existence. Probability is definitely on the side of degeneration just as the fossils and the similarities of species.