Lol, yeah this would be much better with a 404 error. And BTW that article still does nothing to address the 404 error illustrated above.
Species A being related to species b species b came from species a. It’s all hypothetical. Not that the Intelligent Design camp is particularly concrete either…
Evolution gets pwnt…
Not quite:
www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/apr/06/evolution.fossils
Isn’t that a missing image error and not a missing link?
Evolution > *.religion.
Evoluton …
Hmm WTF my equation didn’t show.
Evolution >= religion
Religion > …,
lol, html
Isn’t this a repost? And yes, it would be funnier if that was a 404 instead.
Lol, yeah this would be much better with a 404 error. And BTW that article still does nothing to address the 404 error illustrated above.
Species A being related to species b species b came from species a. It’s all hypothetical. Not that the Intelligent Design camp is particularly concrete either…
That didn’t come out right. Durn html…
A lot of sensationalism going on in that article. It does not “solve” evolution. It merely makes it more plausible.
The fact that “A” is found to be closely linked, or related to “B” does not mean that “B” is a descendant of “A”…