Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
About Traditional Art / Hobbyist Dylan88/Male/Canada Recent Activity
Deviant for 1 Year
Needs Core Membership
Statistics 50 Deviations 662 Comments 4,833 Pageviews

Newest Deviations

No Dromaeosaur In Particular by leptoceratops No Dromaeosaur In Particular :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 12 6 77th Montgomery's Highlanders (Britain 7yw ) by leptoceratops 77th Montgomery's Highlanders (Britain 7yw ) :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 4 0 Hort Frei Infanterie NCO (Prussia 7 years war) by leptoceratops Hort Frei Infanterie NCO (Prussia 7 years war) :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 5 0 1st Braganca Infantry (Portugal 7 years war) by leptoceratops 1st Braganca Infantry (Portugal 7 years war) :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 5 0 Sciurumimus by leptoceratops Sciurumimus :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 11 2 Pterodactyls Kochi by leptoceratops Pterodactyls Kochi :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 14 2 Majungasaurus  by leptoceratops Majungasaurus :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 28 13 Sordes pilosus by leptoceratops Sordes pilosus :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 18 6 Smilodon fatalis  by leptoceratops Smilodon fatalis :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 13 2 moreexperimentingwithdigitalart(nemicolopterus) by leptoceratops moreexperimentingwithdigitalart(nemicolopterus) :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 5 3 SENATVS POPVLVS QUE ROMANVS by leptoceratops SENATVS POPVLVS QUE ROMANVS :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 3 0 Insanity by leptoceratops Insanity :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 15 6 Napping Carno couple, featuring annoying shadow! by leptoceratops Napping Carno couple, featuring annoying shadow! :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 10 3 An ankylosaurid by leptoceratops An ankylosaurid :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 7 20 Dodo by leptoceratops Dodo :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 9 7 My favourite dinosaur by leptoceratops My favourite dinosaur :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 6 4


Magnapaulia by Paleop Magnapaulia :iconpaleop:Paleop 96 20 Ornithoprion hertwigi by AcroSauroTaurus Ornithoprion hertwigi :iconacrosaurotaurus:AcroSauroTaurus 47 4 Parasaurolophus cyrtocristatus by MrSamosaurus Parasaurolophus cyrtocristatus :iconmrsamosaurus:MrSamosaurus 100 3 Reaction Meme Shirt Design by SkallagrimNilsson Reaction Meme Shirt Design :iconskallagrimnilsson:SkallagrimNilsson 17 5 Toco Toucan study by XStreamChaosOfficial Toco Toucan study :iconxstreamchaosofficial:XStreamChaosOfficial 60 7 Bearing the McSweeney Arms. by RobbieMcSweeney Bearing the McSweeney Arms. :iconrobbiemcsweeney:RobbieMcSweeney 188 21 Zhejiangopterus linhaiensis by casielles Zhejiangopterus linhaiensis :iconcasielles:casielles 46 0 Blue tit, Common blackbird and European robin by namu-the-orca Blue tit, Common blackbird and European robin :iconnamu-the-orca:namu-the-orca 78 17 Grey crowned crane by namu-the-orca Grey crowned crane :iconnamu-the-orca:namu-the-orca 204 35 Yi qi by DanneArt Yi qi :icondanneart:DanneArt 120 9 Halszkaraptor escuilliei by DanneArt Halszkaraptor escuilliei :icondanneart:DanneArt 115 9 Fishy Thing by Eurwentala Fishy Thing :iconeurwentala:Eurwentala 204 9 Cambrian Oddballs by Eurwentala Cambrian Oddballs :iconeurwentala:Eurwentala 177 16 Caulk 'ead by AlternatePrehistory Caulk 'ead :iconalternateprehistory:AlternatePrehistory 113 20 The Redesigned Dinosaurs, Kloon close up by Dragonthunders The Redesigned Dinosaurs, Kloon close up :icondragonthunders:Dragonthunders 64 10 Sylviornis by 9Weegee Sylviornis :icon9weegee:9Weegee 39 4



Stephen Hawking.StarChild.jpg
I am very bad at words for grief, so I will say little.
Sorry to bother but I am back, I have had a bit of bad luck lately with flu, frostbite, foot-fungus,work stuff, and lazy indolence of a disgusting degree to boot.
  • Listening to: the voices
  • Reading: fanny hill
  • Watching: my sanity slip out of multiple orphuses
  • Playing: five finger filet
  • Eating: your girl
  • Drinking: absinthe
So Its been a while...

The offending text (…)

Fossils prove the sudden emergence of a new species out of nowhere, complete with characteristics unknown in any other species. The fossil record has no intermediate or transitional forms. This is popularly known as the "missing link" problem, and it exists in all species. The missing link problem is getting worse, not better, with the discovery of more fossils.

No one credible has ever used the term "missing link problem" your attempt to make yourself look smart by phrasing it in that way just looks foolish. Every species is transitional and the fossil record proves that, but I don't need to use the fossil record even with modern animals speciation is apparent like in cockatoos for example

Cacatua galerita Tas 2.jpgNacktaugenkakadu Little Corella.jpg
Cacatua galerita                C. alba                                C. (Licmetis) sanguinea

  Lophochroa leadbeateri   Eolophus roseicapilla                Callocephalon fimbriatum

As you can see all of these species are similar but distinct, some are more similar than others, and that is how we classify them.

The missing links are not being discovered, which proves they never existed. Darwin assumed transitional forms would be discovered in the fossil record over time, but that has not been the case. The fossil record, or lack thereof, is a major embarrassment to evolutionists.

The fossil record is a serious rebuke of the Theory of Evolution. New species explode onto the scene out of nowhere. New fossil discoveries continue to prove evolution to be wrong.

Fossil of complete Archaeopteryx, including indentations of feathers on wings and tail

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton

Michael Denton says,
"Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin."
First off, let me tell you that using some guy with university degrees to pomp your argument is sad, but even he though a believer in an intelligent creator still finds creationism absurd. Second off this quote is misinformed at best, seeing as new fossils specimens that change the way we think are discovered almost every month it seems like sometimes and to assert that paleontologist have just been spinning their wheels for since the nineteenth century is complete bollocks.

A reader of the Michael Denton's book says,
"Denton a Molecular Biologist removes all of the supports (if there ever were any) from Darwin's theory of macro-evolution (continuity of life). Denton blasts all of the previous arguments made by the pro-evolutionists showing that there is essentially no support of macro-evolution in the fossil record. He also, clearly demonstrates that there is no support coming from his specialty molecular biology. In the end the only sound explanation he can make is that life is profoundly discontinuous."

Well no, but who is this "reader" anyway? was that the best you could come up with?

Harvard Professor Gould claims that evolution occurs in spurts, not gradually. This theory attempts to explain the lack of continuity in the fossil record. However, this theory is more troublesome than the gradual change theory. Large jumps or spurts in the fossil record don't prove evolution at all. In fact, they disprove evolution.

No you imbecile that is not what punctuated equilibrium is, punctuated equilibrium is simply an observed phenomena, that being when an animal is well suited to its environment it tends towards staying similar and when its environment changes there is alot of pressure to adapt or die so change happens ad a comparatively rapid rate
Related image
The theory that evolution can occur in spurts, because the fossil record shows it did not occur gradually, is a wild stretch of the imagination. Species have some characteristics similar to other species, but similarity doesn't prove any evolutionary link whatsoever. There are more than missing links in biology. There are entire missing chains in 100% of the branches of the evolutionary tree.

 You say link and chain like they have some kind of quantifiable meaning, if by missing links you mean every ancestor to everything ever than you are just being daft. If I give you most of a puzzle and and then you tell me that I will never know what it is but that you do know and what you describe is not indicated by the pieces we do have then that makes you wrong.
Image result for partially complete puzzle
(pretty sure its a basket of fruit)

Many species are dependant upon another species for their coexistence. Hummingbirds and flowers are a good example. The flower would not be pollinated and would become extinct without the bird. They are said to have coevolved together. That is a stretch of the imagination without any basis in science. There are hundreds of these examples that cannot be explained.

HOW?! What about symbiosis can't be explained? A member of a species with a particular habit of interacting with another organism in a way that happens to benefit both of them is successful and its descendant that have traits that make this symbiotic proses easier or better are more likely to be successful, where is the mystery?

Charles Darwin had concern about his theory of natural selection. He knew that a failure to find the missing transitional links would seriously cripple his theory of evolution, but he was hopeful the missing links would be found some day.

and the day came in 1861, when Archaeopteryx Lithographica was discovered.

Well, guess what? He died not finding them. Evolutionists have never found the missing links. Each time they announce finding one, it is later proven to be false.

The only thing false here is you.
Related image
  • Listening to: the voices
  • Reading: fanny hill
  • Watching: my sanity slip out of multiple orphuses
  • Playing: five finger filet
  • Eating: your girl
  • Drinking: absinthe
deeply sorry for the inactivity (audience: who are you?)

The offending text (…)

Evolutionists are going ape over "Ape-Girl"

if by "going ape" you mean acknowledging that the Australopithecus afarensis specimen AL 288-1 (Lucy/Dinkinesh) is a bipedal hominid then yes we are "going ape"?

(there is no such word as evolutionist by the way)

The fossilized bones of a new animal have been found in Ethiopia near the site where "Lucy" was discovered many years ago

and this is? (Side note: further down I realized He was taking about DIK-1/1 (Selam)

By the way, Lucy was a monkey, not an early humanoid. The number of bones of the Ape-girl skeleton are unique because Lucy had only a few head fragments.

Yes and so are you, but I don't see how having few head fragments remaining is "unique" many fossils in this area of the word from this time period are poorly preserved compared to some.

This find gives us a lot of information about the animal because major parts of the skeleton were unearthed (assuming these are all from the same animal).

Yes the most interesting part of the specimen is its pelvis which I have addressed in a previous entry. and when multiple highly similar bones are in the same layer and and very close in proximity and show now signs of being disturbed then assuming otherwise would be daft.

It has teeth in the jaw and is said to also have unerupted teeth still within the jaw. The evolutionists call the animal a "human-like" female child about three years of age and an "individual." This is not a "human-like" fossil. It is an "ape-like" fossil because it was an ape.

Saying "It's not a human it's an ape" is like saying "That's not a car its a Toyota".

The evolutionists call the animal a "transitional species" and a human ancestor even though it has a head exactly like a modern-day ape. The jaw is thrust forward and the forehead pushed back and slanted. The true appearance is more easily seen from side picture below.

This is very deceptive, you ignore the variation in ape skull shapes (including your own) and that we know for a fact that this is an Australopithecus afanesis and even without the skull it is undeniably so. but he ignores this because that would cast quite a bit of shade on his already shaky argument.

Ape-girl also has arms "that dangled down to just above the knees. It also had gorilla-like shoulder blades which suggest it could have been skilled at swinging through trees."

(Du na na na na na na na, Na na na na na na na na na Ape Girl!) A. afarensis was semi-arboreal and had many nonhuman traits, hence Australopithecus afarensis and not Homo afarensis, also it it funny how you only point out the traits that support your argument and nothing else, because 'science can be fully trusted, until it contradicts my preconceived beliefs that is.'

So, it looks like an ape, it has a head like an ape, it has arms like an ape, it has shoulder blades like an ape - It is obviously an ape, not a human, pre-human or humanoid. This animal is simply a young ape. Its size is as would be expected for a young modern-day ape.
Related image
Yes  they are.

The age of this fossilized animal is also very much in doubt. Scientists many years ago claimed a tooth found was Nebraska Man, a pre-human fossil millions of years old. They determined the age of the tooth. The scientists had sculptured an entire ape-like skeleton from information they found in one tooth. These lies were exposed when real scientists found the tooth to be from a peccary, an animal similar to (and closely related to) pigs.

I really don't get this game of Chinese whispers that you creationists are playing with the whole "Nebraska man" thing, literally everyone and their parrot has talked about this (come to think of it I might have in a previous entry) so I won't waste my time or yours.

'Lucy's baby' found in Ethiopia - BBC News - September 21, 2006
"The 3.3-million-year-old fossilised remains of a human-like child have been unearthed in Ethiopia's Dikika region. The find consists of the whole skull, the entire torso, and important parts of the upper and lower limbs. CT scans reveal unerupted teeth still in the jaw, a detail that makes scientists think the individual may have been about three years old when she died."
Remarkably, some quite delicate bones not normally preserved in the fossilisation process are also present, such as the hyoid, or tongue, bone. The hyoid bone reflects how the voice box is built and perhaps what sounds a species can produce.

Judging by how well it was preserved, the skeleton may have come from a body that was quickly buried by sediment in a flood, the researchers said. 
"In my opinion, afarensis is a very good transitional species for what was before four million years ago and what came after three million years," Dr Alemseged told BBC science correspondent Pallab Ghosh. [The species had] a mixture of ape-like and human-like features. This puts afarensis in a special position to play a pivotal role in the story of what we are and where we come from."

The news is literally the worst source of information you could go to but in this case ok.

Climbing Ability
"This early ancestor possessed primitive teeth and a small brain but it stood upright and walked on two feet. There is considerable argument about whether the Dikika girl could also climb trees like an ape.

This climbing ability would require anatomical equipment like long arms, and the 'Lucy' species had arms that dangled down to just above the knees. It also had gorilla-like shoulder blades which suggest it could have been skilled at swinging through trees. But the question is whether such features indicate climbing ability or are just 'evolutionary baggage'."


Evolution is in trouble. The growth of biological knowledge is producing scientific facts that contradict the evolutionary theory, not confirm it, a fact that famous Prof. Steven Jay Gould of Harvard has described as "the trade secret of paleontology."

No it doesn't, none of this contradicts anything we already know, and also you are completely misrepresenting Prof.Gould's views a better quote would be:

 "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks. Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study. 
For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]"

(the words in square brackets were added after) this is a criticism of gradualism, and a very valid criticism of what most now consider an outdated view. tweaking to already evidenced ideas will always happen as we learn more that is how learning works.

The fossil record simply does not support the evolutionary theory, which claims there once existed a series of successive forms leading to the present-day organism. The theory states that infinitesimal changes within each generation evolve into a new species, but the scientific fact remains. They don't.

Yes it does, you know what it doesn't support, your magic sky-daddy Abracadabra'ing everything into existence all at once.

Related image
  • Listening to: the voices
  • Reading: fanny hill
  • Watching: my sanity slip out of multiple orphuses
  • Playing: five finger filet
  • Eating: your girl
  • Drinking: absinthe
The offending text (…)

Okay children take your seats.

Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Prove Evolution Theory is Wrong

Your infantile attempt at a statement is not only
 fallacious in regards to its factually but it is also grammatically incorrect.

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic, and scientific proof.

You're a dumb bastard and I'm going to set your straw men on fire.

but I digress, no one has ever claimed that the existence of individual species in and of itself is proof of evolution the fact that all life can be classified according to there relatedness to each other in such an obvious manner (in most cases) that even without the help of DNA analysis you can classify organisms based on relatedness to a degree that would be impossible without common descent and that in the majority cases DNA confirms what can be observed from in-depth physiological categorization and even in the few cases wear this is not the case they are still in every case related to another group similar to themselves, that is why 
phylogenetics in my opinion is one of the strongest cases for evolution. Your second sentence describes only your own statement.

Evolutionists line up pictures of similar-looking species and claim they evolved one from another. The human "family tree" is an example of this flawed theory. Petrified skulls and bones exist from hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes.

see above.

Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture.

make believe creatures really, a creationist, telling me I believe in make believe creatures, but anyway the topic of how we know our paleontological finds are authentic is a very large topic (I think by now I have more than a right to say that) but if you are curious about the subject check out my "dinosaurs aren't real" series, or some scientific papers, or a book, maybe like a Wikipedia article or something, this shit isn't hard to find.

This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes, elephants or the Platypus. (...)

Image result for evolutionary history of elephantImage result for evolutionary history of giraffes
Related image

The pictures are simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

No, literally every biological science supports evolution.

Why do they claim the above discovery is "close to the missing link"? The answer is simple. Look at the picture: It is a monkey.

Yes and so are you, maybe if you wrenched you head from your intestinal tract once in a while you would notice that

A monkey species that has become extinct. Lots of species have become extinct. Millions of species have become extinct.

Yes and? What does it being extinct have o do with its relation to humans?

It is obviously not similar to a human. Look at the feet with the big toe spread away from the smaller toes exactly like a modern chimpanzee, not like people. 

Actually your big toe is slightly separate from the rest of your toes, it has the largest gap between its neighbor and it is also capable of the most independent movement. We are the most terrestrial extant primate, this is consistent with the human foot on the diagram below the two other most terrestrial primates in the diagram below are gorillas and baboons, though not as terrestrial as ourselves they do spend a lot of their time on the ground, Orangutan and Lemur are the most arboreal of the primates represented here, this is all consistent with the diagram but observation of all of these obviously show common ancestry. it should also be said that as terrestrial animals Australopithecines have feet very unlike arboreal and semi-arboreal (like chimps) primates. and very similar to other terrestrial primates like ourselves

Related imageImage result for australopithecus footprintsImage result for australopithecus footprints

you also ignore all of the other traits we share with Australopithecines such as being bipedal, having characteristic simian Auricles, downward facing nostrils, highly reduced tails, a set of two pectoral mammaries, forward facing eyes...(I think I need not go on).

A newly discovered extinct species does not prove a "missing link" has been found.

It does and it has, also every species both extinct and extant is transitional, that is why I hate the term "missing link" and I have discuses this in grater detail in previous entries.

Charles Darwin admitted that fossils of the transitional links between species would have to be found in order to prove his "Theory of Evolution." Well, these transitional links have never been found. We only find individual species.

If by this you mean that he predicted if he was write extinct animals would be found with traits from both one group of similar animals and another (which he did) than by never you mean 1861, Darwin was alive at the time of this discovery and knew he was write about the dinosaur bird connection. it took many others a bit longer, and clearly some are still not on the same page.
Image result for London Specimen

Evolutionists try to form these individual species into a link according to similar major features such as wings or four legs, but this simply proves the Theory of Evolution to be a fraud. Darwin was hopeful that future fossils would prove his theory correct, but instead, the lack of transitional links has proven his theory to be wrong.

Literally all of that was nonsense.

The presence of individual species actually proves they were not developed by an evolutionary process. If evolution were true, all plants, animals, and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical, because they would not be separate species.

(the two paragraphs were to similar to warrant independent response).

All life forms would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species. Everything would be changing, and every animal, insect, and plant would be different.

Except that they are, it's just your to slo- I mean It's to slow to normally be obvious.

The cheetah above proves evolution does not exist. All species are locked solidly within their DNA code.

Image result for cheetahImage result for cheetah color morphs
Stephen Hawking.StarChild.jpg
I am very bad at words for grief, so I will say little.


leptoceratops's Profile Picture
Artist | Hobbyist | Traditional Art
i do sketches sometimes...



Add a Comment:
DinoBirdMan Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2017  Student Artist
Thanks for two faves and watch! :)
leptoceratops Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
your welcome :)
Glavenychus Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
Happy Birthday!!
leptoceratops Featured By Owner Nov 11, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Thank you!
Tigon1Monster Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2017
Happy Birthday!
leptoceratops Featured By Owner Nov 11, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Thank you :)
Tigon1Monster Featured By Owner Nov 11, 2017
Your Welcome.
leptoceratops Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
(1 Reply)
Lorenzo-Franzese Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Happy birthday!
leptoceratops Featured By Owner Nov 11, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Thank you! :)
Add a Comment: