Black background

German 1943 law illegalizing abortion:

"A woman who kills her fetus or permits such a killing by another will be punished by a prison sentence and, in especially serious cases, by penitentiary. An attempt is punishable. Whoever else kills the fetus of a pregnant woman will be punished by a penitentiary sentence, in milder cases by prison.

If the perpetrator through such deeds continuously impairs the vitality of the German Volk, the death penalty can be imposed. Whoever procures for the pregnant woman a means or objects for killing the fetus will be punished by prison sentence, and in especially serious cases, by penitentiary."

In other words, Hitler & his Nazis made abortion illegal and potentially possible by death.

I think you replied to the wrong guy

Used my line against me. I feel so ashamed. Lesson learned.

Effin Democrats.

Dems have so much in common with Hitler... weaponizing the government to go after political rivals... censorship of free speech... racism... antisemitism... building internment camps...

Don't forget the perpetual war and trying to engineer society for the "better".
And they eat sugar too, just like Hitter!

I heard the also drink water.

Now that’s just wrong! 😂

I was going to say both breathe oxygen buuuut...

Forced vaccinations... the list is long

Another fun fact: Democrats also forcibly sterilized people based on eugenics, just like Hitler.

And Hitler, just like the dems, believes in the now debunked theory of evolution (see mitochondrial ancestor study by stoeckle)

And according to another meme, many scientists now believe Adam and Eve did exist and they lived in what is now Iraq.

Oh my gosh. What scientists?
Do they also believe that Cain went to the city of Nod to find a wife to carry on the human race because procreating with his mom would be kind of icky? So he went to a city. Elsewhere. Oh, did I mention that already?

You realize by the time of Cain there were already a ton of other children right? According to some estimates there could have been as many as 32,000 people alive during that event.

Correct. The city. Of Nod.

Adam, Eve, Cain. That's it. That was the whole of humanity. Three people. End of the line.
So Cain had to go to another city to find a wife. A city. The city called "Nod" is called a city because it was a city. The last eligible bachelor on Earth had to go to the city of Nod to find a wife because there were no more people left on Earth.

Let that sink in.

Try reading bro. It says Adam and Eve had more children, then do the math on their ages and the ages of their children and you get about 32k people alive by then.

Um, no.

No, not debunked. By no one.
In fact, the so-called 'Creationists' more recently came up with microevolution to account for evidence of actual evolution that they simply cannot discount with fairy tales about how the Levant was created. They even made an Ark museum with all types of prehistoric creatures supposedly on Noah's Ark despite them not being named by Adam.

Bro, when you spew nonsense, you really spew nonsense.
Stoeckle study shows that mitochondrial DNA (bar code ancestry tracking) goes back to a certain point in time and just stops. Also 90% of living things today do not have common ancestors. That pretty much destroys the current theory of evolution.
A few creationists pouring forward a theory that can't be proven does not do anything to the rest of them.
How do you know Adam didn't name them? The current creationists theory is that most creatures devolved to the separate species we have now by loss of information.
Even the evolutionists have had to admit there was a global flood (they say caused by tifal waves from a meteor hitting the ocean) and all cultures have a Noah's ark like story, even those that had no contact with the outside world for hundreds of years.

The purposely 'misunderstood' Stoeckle quote:

"the extant population, no matter what its current size or similarity to fossils of any age, has expanded from mitochondrial uniformity within the past 200,000 years'

They're talking about the frequency of genetic mutations in a particular gene in the mitochondrial genome over the last 200,000 years in modern species, not the original of genes altogether. Variations of that gene within a species, as expected, would be far less been compared to others species.

Although that would depend also on population size and genetic diversity for given species. Something like a cheetah which went through a genetic bottleneck and thus exhibits less genetic variability would of course show far less.

According to the misinterpretation you refer to, cheetahs have only existed for 12,000 years, which of course we know is untrue. But even 12,000 is twice as long as Earth supposedly has existed according to your mythological worldview. 200,000 years - well, you do the math.

Lungfish don't have lungs? Nice to know. I guess that means that the lungs of coelacanths and birchers aren't lungs as well. I should jot that down lest I forget.

Mudskippers are gobies without swim bladders, so nothing approaching lung function in that regard. Specialized structures in their mouth and gills help facilitate breathing out of water for them.

Some species of cetaceans have vestigial pelvises. That's because they no longer need legs to be attached to them, but they're not totally gone quite yet.

There are cultures that have flood stories, they happen all the time. If you were here in America you might have heard it on the news yesterday, occurring in Kentucky. Some are even bigger than that. None have been worldwide nor at the same time.

Research is key.

Nonsense.

What’s nonsense is the belief that evolution can be proven. I don’t suppose you witnessed it happening in nature, or have repeated the process in a laboratory— so you take it by faith.

Sure, from observable measurable adaptions of anoles placed in various small Bahamian islands to study population pressures on exceedingly finite ecologies in the 1980s anoles in cities,

To Steamer ducks where 1/3 fly, 1/3 still can fly if they really have to but would rather not, and 1/3 never fly at all, and they're all part of the same population,

To cane toads in Australia, an invasive species in which those at the front of the line spreading outwards exhibit increasing leg lengths, allowing them to hop ever faster,

These and more are all trends happening now. Totally observable. That's why the Creationists had to come up with microevolution, because it's happening right before their eyes. At a quicker pace than scientists even expected.
Their pet dog too. Not sure if you know this, but there are no such thing as Bichon Frisés in the wild. But there are Carolina yellow dogs and Australian dingos, and those are closest to the ancestral wild dog species, which itself has separated from wolves at least 67,000 years ago.

Scientists have even recently found evidence indicating that the wild ancestors of domesticated horses were all striped like zebras, something I've been saying for ages. Plains and Mountain zebras, in fact, are closer related to horses, whereas Grevy's zebras are actually closer related to donkeys.

But hey, you know what, you find me a picture of wild corn or wild tomatoes in their original state.

I'll wait..

In each of your examples the species has stayed the same. You don’t see a duck turning into a swan or a dog turning into a bear, or a frog turning into a snake. Let me know when you find a picture that shows the transitions between those.

Yeah, no kdding. What, you going to buy a frog and stick it in a terrarium and it's going to turn into a snake overnight? On what planet?

Considering that your pictorial examples were both of the same genus but of different species that does not move the goal posts. However, evolution requires all organisms of every species to come from simpler organisms. So, show me where there is a fossil of some genus changing to another.

But anyways, since you asked, you don't need fossils, although a couple of these are described as living fossils, because they go that far back. Lobe-finned fishes, some even with lungs.

I made the compilation over 4 years ago.

imgflip.com/i/5fjpkx

They don't have lungs they have an organ that processes air. They also don't have any ancestors that are common to any living species today. See stoeckle study. You don't seem to get it. Selective breeding for traits and loss of traits does not prove evolution.
Its like someone looking at the moon and saying "it has holes like Swiss cheese, therefore the moon must be made of cheese." There's a lot of missed connections there.

No, they were not of the same genus, except for dogs and wolves, but actually I was talking about domesticated dogs coming from wild dogs, so like the others, Cuban anoles, Cane toads, and Steamer ducks, these are all changes within the same species with little genetic change for that matter.

Anoles placed on more windswept Bahamian islands developed shorter legs so they won't get blown off branches as easily, while those left on less windy Islands had longer legs.

If you want similar but in terms of speciation, you can find those with flying dragon lizards in the Philippines, where species on more windy Islands have shorter ribs to go with the shorter limbs, and those are less windy Islands... This, of course, is a process that took slightly longer than 20 years, which is how long it took to notice this with the Anoles.

Loss of traits doesn't prove evolution. It actually makes it harder to prove.
The principal process by which evolution works, the mutation and gaining of new traits, has never been observed despite a hundred years of trying to find it. Thus it remains a theory. In reality it's no more than a hypothesis because a theory has been observed and has evidence behind it.