frosbel:

actually there have been atheists from thousands of years ago to now , and even during the time of the apostles.

King David called those who say there is no GOD fools and so did many of the prophets and ancient believers.

Yes ,the church has a lot to answer for , but there is a big difference between rejecting the church or the mosque , and coming to a rather erroneous conclusion that God does not exit.

yh and you think your any better? The same fucking david sent a man to the front lines to die so as to f.u.k he's wife. And the joke yaweh let the child be born before killing it. The whole joke is depraved.

davidylan:

Believing in a theory that you cant prove is blind faith.
To ridicule others for blind faith while trying to feel your way aimlessly around a theory you cant decipher is beyond idiocy.

you are a fool the theories that science claim all have substantial proofs and have been observed . That is why science and theories work via peer review journals under severe scrutiny. Your religion is based on a 2000 year old book. Guess what! the earth is 4 billion years old. And on the basis that your Yahweh does exist the myth says only 144000 Jews will enter heaven from the 12 tribes of Israel. The id.io.t fu.cktrd who wrote that joke at that time couldn't wrap his mind around there being close to 8 billion people on earth now reason of the off chance that Yahweh is real could you be among the 1 million most holy by the book Christians or are you even Jew. The shit is joke live with that fact i could pull apart the bullshit right in front of your eyes.

davidylan:

Very simple question - what is your definition of "morality"?

anything that furthers human existence as a collective unit and the definition of the law and Logic. I hate st.up.id people.

frosbel:

but this blood sucking god does not exist, why should it bother you so deeply that you feel the need to rant against him , does this not make you confused and almost a psychiatric case , lol.

You say he does not exist, yet you and your bandwagon of 'there is no GOD screamers ' keep opening articles and writing topics to attack this god who does not exist.

Weird folk !

Because your ilk folks disturb us by letting your individual religion dictate laws we are collectively judged by. Furthermore your brain dead folks are constantly manipulated into fighting wars committing mass genocide and engaging on stupid religious wars. "Religious wars are wars fought on who has the best imaginary friend " Napolien Bonaparte. fUrthermore why do christians feel they have the right to comment on anything to do with morality. History itself reveals that The cathlic church has been the most opressive regime, killed the most people and engaged heavily in mass genocide. Their heroes saul, joshua, abraham and what not all engaged in mass genocide so what can we expect.

davidylan:

I asked you a very simple question. It is either you know the answer or not rather than whining all over the place.

You agree with the thread that atheists are more "moral" than christians... well can you DEFINE what "moral" means and by what metric it is measured? Very simple.

All these questions can be found answered on other threads. The ignorance of you religious ilks worry me

davidylan:

the problem is many of you are just airheads. You pontificate about something you have no clear understanding of.

How can you agree with a thread whose central treatise you cannot even articulate coherently? Odd.

And you are the better airhead right?

frosbel:

How I wish those atheists such as Stalin , Chairman Mao and co had the common sense to avoid the greatest bloodbath of human history in the first half of the 20th century.

I repeat , only a FOOL will come a conclusion that God does not exist and you do not have to be a Christian or Muslim to believe that a GOD exists.


You and your cohorts are atheist wannabes mimicking your western counterparts and slave masters ,while sounding far less intelligent in comparison.

You are s.tu.pi.d beyond comprehensible measures. You know that Christianity was dumped on Africans tho?

1ord: you are a fool the theories that science claim all have substantial proofs and have been observed . That is why science and theories work via peer review journals under severe scrutiny. Your religion is based on a 2000 year old book. Guess what! the earth is 4 billion years old. And on the basis that your Yahweh does exist the myth says only 144000 Jews will enter heaven from the 12 tribes of Israel. The id.io.t fu.cktrd who wrote that joke at that time couldn't wrap his mind around there being close to 8 billion people on earth now reason of the off chance that Yahweh is real could you be among the 1 million most holy by the book Christians or are you even Jew. The shit is joke live with that fact i could pull apart the bullshit right in front of your eyes.

ayayai... another one of the blowhards pops up and starts making noise about science he doesn't understand.

Lets start here... what part of abiogenesis has empirical proof again? the big bang has what empirical evidence? macro evolution has what empirical evidence? This is the problem with empty barrels who think a few webpages is sufficient enough to take on the tag "scientist".

1ord: Actually what you have done is very wrong defunct statistics. You have just misinterpreted information and whilst i commend your effort it is not acceptable in any scientific circles. The percentage is not a percentage of the total population but the percentage of the statistical population of atheist so if they were 1000 population in total with 980 been Christians and 20 being theists that would be 264.6 of the total Christian population however for atheists that would be 4.2. However comparison in figures is not fair given the large margin in the populations hence percentage is used. You need a solid history in market analysis involving scientific project to understand this. However i hope have debunked your response and you understand.hence your conclusion given you understand this should be wrong. Furthermore religion or ireligion who is to say what is moral and right. Everything seems so subjective sentimental and open to interpretation hence it is volatile. Conquer them with Guns and pacify them with religion. I cant say which is better but we both know which has been less violent

by the time i was through trying to parse the poor use of punctuation and the terrible use of grammatical structure, i was left more confused than i started. What were you trying to say again?

UyiIredia:

21% of the people divorcing in a huge population are atheists. That's a pretty bad position considering the FACT. That atheists are the smallest group in the population. For their size their divorce rates are considerably high. Get that into your thick skull.

Atheism is anti-religion you fool! Aren't you an informed atheist ? Don't you see what atheists say on discussion boards, YouTube etc.

Atheism was part of the ideology of Stalin & Pol Pot and had much to do with their killlings. Stop denying this simple truth.

Hitler was an evolutionist, end of story !

the truth is that you are the fool

20% of 10 people equals 2

20% of 100 people equals 20

so in your naivity you thing the two cases dont have an equal rate because the total population of one is less.

there are mean Christians there are evil Christians and the same go for atheists but the jihad makes it legitimate for muslims to kill, the bible makes it ok for christains to kill. i know a christain reading this will say no, yes u are right even Christan standards have changed. the bible says do not suffer a witch to live and a lot of witches were burnt and drowned. we (christains) went on crusades against the ottoman turks for the holy lands.

a lot of people are athesit because religious stories and doctrines dont add up. if you dont believe noah could put all the species in an ark or that one young jewish guy is God and hw is a spirit at the same time, you cant force yourself to.

davidylan:

by the time i was through trying to parse the poor use of punctuation and the terrible use of grammatical structure, i was left more confused than i started. What were you trying to say again?

Your insulting or dismissing my correction does not abslove facts. I have already debunked your defunct pseudo attempts at statistics. Your slander upon me doesn't move me i speak knowledge. Just get better educated .

davidylan: ayayai... another one of the blowhards pops up and starts making noise about science he doesn't understand.

Lets start here... what part of abiogenesis has empirical proof again? the big bang has what empirical evidence? macro evolution has what empirical evidence? This is the problem with empty barrels who think a few webpages is sufficient enough to take on the tag "scientist".

What you did here is funny.You try to write of my punctuation though you are aware of my eloquence in my communication . Good one. I like how you tried to dismiss or deflect what i said about the 144000 Jews . However, just be aware that Nigerians have no place in the Jewish agenda. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is a very real and relevant outcome of evolution by natural selection. If people do not use antibiotics as recommended by their doctors, they will not kill all of the bacteria they want to treat. This creates a selective pressure on this population of bacteria by killing off any antibiotic susceptible bacteria. The remaining population of bacteria will repopulate the environment, and this population will now, on average, be more antibiotic resistant than the original population. Thus, evolution has occurred. Antibiotic resistance is a very well-documented problem directly related to evolution.

A few clearly documented examples of evolution that you may look up include:

-Ring species, such as the greenish warbler or salamanders of the genus Ensatina
-The phenomena of polyploidy, which leads to instant speciation
-Reproductive isolation of stickbacks

I have so many proofs but you might not be worth so much effort.

Ultimately, the best source of "concrete" proof of evolution would be a textbook on evolutionary biology. There are many misconceptions of exactly what evolution entails, and without knowing the basics, you won't be able to appreciate the significance of any experimental evidence presented to you.

Also, you need to realize that evolution has occurred if gene frequencies in a population have changed. You cannot argue that evolution has not occurred just because an evolved organism looks similar to its ancestor.here is some genetic material in every known organism called 16S RNA. there does not exist an organism that does not have it. Basically, using 16S RNA one can come up with something similar to the periodic table of elements, but for organisms. When analyzed, it yields a code that can be compared to others, showing degree of relation. Furthermore, DNA homology between different species supports evolution as well. There is a high % of homology between various organisms, . There are more proofs of emperical evidences of evolution as for the big bang there is observed evidence in the sense that the distancees between celestial bodies continue to increase. In a sorta pattern such that it is away from the centre of the univerese like a sharpnel explosion with pieces moving away from the center. It is highly theoretical and i fear explaining such because you seem to have no basic foundation in the sciences hence it would sound like jargon since you are out of the know. I am aware the burden of proof lies with me however i hate wasting unappreciated effort.Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, specialization, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time . Furthermore the theory of homology agrees and reveals the trueness of thisi i.e evolution by its reliance on the theory of common descent which homology proves. Common descent is the theory that all life form is related to a singular acient species . This is the fundamental theory of genetics. Furthermore abiogenesis is not considered in the evolution theory abiogenesis deals with the source and scientific theories deal with the path traveled not the source. In comparison to quantum mehanics which does not explain the source of particles or energy even though nothing can work in that theory without energy or particles. Same can be said about evolution and abiogenesis it is an inependent hypotheisis on which the evolutionary theory lies on but does not absolve the fact or theory of evolution

1ord: Your insulting or dismissing my correction does not abslove facts. I have already debunked your defunct pseudo attempts at statistics. Your slander upon me doesn't move me i speak knowledge. Just get better educated .

I'm lost, what facts" did you pass across? If i had a penny for how many times you and other half-baked science wannabes use the term "debunked" i'd be well on my way to buying a mansion by now. Well now lets get to the meat of your post.

1ord: What you did here is funny.You try to write of my punctuation though you are aware of my eloquence in my communication . Good one. I like how you tried to dismiss or deflect what i said about the 144000 Jews . However, just be aware that Nigerians have no place in the Jewish agenda.

Eloquence - fluent or persuasive speaking or writing.

How you think poor grammatical structure and an inability to use proper punctuation is synonymous with "fluent writing" is beyond me. But again i remember that i am dealing with half-baked narcissists here. Secondly, it seems to me that you are mixing folks up... i don't remember saying anything about jews or 144,000 anything. Perhaps you should be a bit more conscious of who you are responding to and what they actually said.

1ord:
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is a very real and relevant outcome of evolution by natural selection. If people do not use antibiotics as recommended by their doctors, they will not kill all of the bacteria they want to treat. This creates a selective pressure on this population of bacteria by killing off any antibiotic susceptible bacteria. The remaining population of bacteria will repopulate the environment, and this population will now, on average, be more antibiotic resistant than the original population. Thus, evolution has occurred. Antibiotic resistance is a very well-documented problem directly related to evolution.

Again i'm not sure you paid any attention to what you read at all. Note that in my post that you quoted, i precisely asked for empirical evidence for MACRO evolution. In case you're unable to read, here is wikipedia's definition - Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.

I have to add here that wikipedia though tries to blur the lines by claiming that macro and micro evolution are basically the same thing, just on a different time scale... but that is absurd because there is absolutely ZERO PROOF that evolution occurs on the SCALE OF SEPARATED GENE POOLS. See, what you have just done is the same musical chairs with the facts that we are used to with atheists. They use mutation/microevolution... random changes that occur WITHIN A SPECIES to claim that macro evolution is true. Well, were is the proof that genetic changes are responsible for creating ENTIRELY NEW SPECIES? That is the question i asked. Its ok to say you don't know.

1ord:
-The phenomena of polyploidy, which leads to instant speciation

Of the lot you listed, this was the one that caught my attention, precisely because i am currently dealing with an issue of whether polyploidy in rat livers is actually evidence of adverse liver effects or whether it is a secondary effect of increased cellular activity with exposure to xenobiotics.

Did you know that the liver of fetuses exhibits significant polyploidy when they are first born? I'm not sure the livers develop into entirely new species though.

See you really have no point. You're bringing up stuff that has been floating all over the internet but really are not considered significant scientific breakthroughs worthy of serious thought. I mean you mentioned reproductive isolation, perhaps you also forgot to add geographic isolation too? This must be a joke.

1ord:
I have so many proofs but you might not be worth so much effort.

Posting internet memes doth not proof make.

1ord:
Ultimately, the best source of "concrete" proof of evolution would be a textbook on evolutionary biology. There are many misconceptions of exactly what evolution entails, and without knowing the basics, you won't be able to appreciate the significance of any experimental evidence presented to you.

I've got a giant textbook on molecular cell biology that i used in grad school. After 5 years of reading it, i have not come across your "concrete" proof. I love how you folks run out of steam and then start pointing us to books we already have and probably have read far more than you have even seen it. If you can find any such books please point me to them, i'm sure between my former grad school, science colleagues and library... i would be able to get my hands on it.

1ord:
Also, you need to realize that evolution has occurred if gene frequencies in a population have changed. You cannot argue that evolution has not occurred just because an evolved organism looks similar to its ancestor.here is some genetic material in every known organism called 16S RNA. there does not exist an organism that does not have it. Basically, using 16S RNA one can come up with something similar to the periodic table of elements, but for organisms. When analyzed, it yields a code that can be compared to others, showing degree of relation. Furthermore, DNA homology between different species supports evolution as well. There is a high % of homology between various organisms, . There are more proofs of emperical evidences of evolution as for the big bang there is observed evidence in the sense that the distancees between celestial bodies continue to increase. In a sorta pattern such that it is away from the centre of the univerese like a sharpnel explosion with pieces moving away from the center. It is highly theoretical and i fear explaining such because you seem to have no basic foundation in the sciences hence it would sound like jargon since you are out of the know. I am aware the burden of proof lies with me however i hate wasting unappreciated effort.Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, specialization, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time . Furthermore the theory of homology agrees and reveals the trueness of thisi i.e evolution by its reliance on the theory of common descent which homology proves. Common descent is the theory that all life form is related to a singular acient species . This is the fundamental theory of genetics. Furthermore abiogenesis is not considered in the evolution theory abiogenesis deals with the source and scientific theories deal with the path traveled not the source. In comparison to quantum mehanics which does not explain the source of particles or energy even though nothing can work in that theory without energy or particles. Same can be said about evolution and abiogenesis it is an inependent hypotheisis on which the evolutionary theory lies on but does not absolve the fact or theory of evolution

I got exhausted just reading the nonsense you put up there. Here is a simple question based on your illogic about DNA homology being proof of evolution... man shares about 50% of its DNA with a maize cob, did we evolve from the same ancestor? Yes or no?

1ord: you are a fool the theories that science claim all have substantial proofs and have been observed . That is why science and theories work via peer review journals under severe scrutiny. Your religion is based on a 2000 year old book. Guess what! the earth is 4 billion years old. And on the basis that your Yahweh does exist the myth says only 144000 Jews will enter heaven from the 12 tribes of Israel. The id.io.t fu.cktrd who wrote that joke at that time couldn't wrap his mind around there being close to 8 billion people on earth now reason of the off chance that Yahweh is real could you be among the 1 million most holy by the book Christians or are you even Jew. The shit is joke live with that fact i could pull apart the bullshit right in front of your eyes.

your reply

davidylan:
by the time i was through trying to parse the poor use of punctuation and the terrible use of grammatical structure, i was left more confused than i started. What were you trying to say again?

davidylan:

I'm lost, what facts" did you pass across? If i had a penny for how many times you and other half-baked science wannabes use the term "debunked" i'd be well on my way to buying a mansion by now. Well now lets get to the meat of your post.

And that's the tactic your ilk use Deflection .Deal with th fact that your religion is a joke and you have no place in it. . Your attempt at ridiculing me are pe.t.ty at best. You can feign ignorance by saying you are lost but the thread is evident.Half baked scientist you say . No sir i am not a scientist in the sense of my occupation if i say so but i do have a graduate degree in aerospace engineering and a doctorate for my research in fluid mechanics. Furthrmore i follow and study the development in scientific principles and theories i am not sure i i would qualify for the term scientist but i do research in my field.The whole point of the 144000 jews debacle is to show your lack of significance in your Gods eyes.

davidylan:

Eloquence - fluent or persuasive speaking or writing.

How you think poor grammatical structure and an inability to use proper punctuation is synonymous with "fluent writing" is beyond me. But again i remember that i am dealing with half-baked narcissists here. Secondly, it seems to me that you are mixing folks up... i don't remember saying anything about jews or 144,000 anything. Perhaps you should be a bit more conscious of who you are responding to and what they actually said.



Again i'm not sure you paid any attention to what you read at all. Note that in my post that you quoted, i precisely asked for empirical evidence for MACRO evolution. In case you're unable to read, here is wikipedia's definition - Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.

I have to add here that wikipedia though tries to blur the lines by claiming that macro and micro evolution are basically the same thing, just on a different time scale... but that is absurd because there is absolutely ZERO PROOF that evolution occurs on the SCALE OF SEPARATED GENE POOLS. See, what you have just done is the same musical chairs with the facts that we are used to with atheists. They use mutation/microevolution... random changes that occur WITHIN A SPECIES to claim that macro evolution is true. Well, were is the proof that genetic changes are responsible for creating ENTIRELY NEW SPECIES? That is the question i asked. Its ok to say you don't know.



Of the lot you listed, this was the one that caught my attention, precisely because i am currently dealing with an issue of whether polyploidy in rat livers is actually evidence of adverse liver effects or whether it is a secondary effect of increased cellular activity with exposure to xenobiotics.

Did you know that the liver of fetuses exhibits significant polyploidy when they are first born? I'm not sure the livers develop into entirely new species though.

See you really have no point. You're bringing up stuff that has been floating all over the internet but really are not considered significant scientific breakthroughs worthy of serious thought. I mean you mentioned reproductive isolation, perhaps you also forgot to add geographic isolation too? This must be a joke.



Posting internet memes doth not proof make.



I've got a giant textbook on molecular cell biology that i used in grad school. After 5 years of reading it, i have not come across your "concrete" proof. I love how you folks run out of steam and then start pointing us to books we already have and probably have read far more than you have even seen it. If you can find any such books please point me to them, i'm sure between my former grad school, science colleagues and library... i would be able to get my hands on it.



I got exhausted just reading the nonsense you put up there. Here is a simple question based on your illogic about DNA homology being proof of evolution... man shares about 50% of its DNA with a maize cob, did we evolve from the same ancestor? Yes or no?

Tactic of deflection again!! it seems you can not be reasoned with. I don't blame you it is a fact that ignorant people are less likely to believe in truths that do not connote to belief system. It would cause cognitive dissonance . You clearly picked the early flaws in my argument which were just a build up then when i pull strong at the end you just dismiss my whole write up. You make no attempt at even recognizing my strong point you just dismiss it . You make no attempt at recognizing the facts because they are in my favor. Your attempts at any intellectual debate at best seem a play on words i literally have to spend 20 mins trying to obtain any substantive points from you The only Thing worth replying is your take on polypidy. Furthermore you try to ridicule my right up where i point to the Biology text book, which was just a statement claiming i am backed into a corner.?? I also point out the observable evidence of the big bang you just write it off. How very educated of you You just dismiss facts that don't agree with your beliefs don't you . You must be a beacon of intellectualism within your prehistoric religious circles.That last paragraph point Towards macro evolution based on it reference to homology which supports proves common decent which in turn is the back bone of macro evolution. You grab my drift. This is why i don't give proofs . Your ilk just dismiss facts but are willing to buy into a God imposed on your ancestors at Gunpoint. "Conquer them with guns and pacify them with religion" A simple imperial strategy. Come at me with well thought out reasoning process i have stated mine given proofs now it is in your court to prove that argument wrong. That is how intellectual constructive arguments work.At the bolded zero proofs you say ? i gave a whole series of reasons and examples but you dismiss them . Kudos

davidylan:

Eloquence - fluent or persuasive speaking or writing.

How you think poor grammatical structure and an inability to use proper punctuation is synonymous with "fluent writing" is beyond me. But again i remember that i am dealing with half-baked narcissists here. Secondly, it seems to me that you are mixing folks up... i don't remember saying anything about jews or 144,000 anything. Perhaps you should be a bit more conscious of who you are responding to and what they actually said.



Again i'm not sure you paid any attention to what you read at all. Note that in my post that you quoted, i precisely asked for empirical evidence for MACRO evolution. In case you're unable to read, here is wikipedia's definition - Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.

I have to add here that wikipedia though tries to blur the lines by claiming that macro and micro evolution are basically the same thing, just on a different time scale... but that is absurd because there is absolutely ZERO PROOF that evolution occurs on the SCALE OF SEPARATED GENE POOLS. See, what you have just done is the same musical chairs with the facts that we are used to with atheists. They use mutation/microevolution... random changes that occur WITHIN A SPECIES to claim that macro evolution is true. Well, were is the proof that genetic changes are responsible for creating ENTIRELY NEW SPECIES? That is the question i asked. Its ok to say you don't know.



Of the lot you listed, this was the one that caught my attention, precisely because i am currently dealing with an issue of whether polyploidy in rat livers is actually evidence of adverse liver effects or whether it is a secondary effect of increased cellular activity with exposure to xenobiotics.

Did you know that the liver of fetuses exhibits significant polyploidy when they are first born? I'm not sure the livers develop into entirely new species though.

See you really have no point. You're bringing up stuff that has been floating all over the internet but really are not considered significant scientific breakthroughs worthy of serious thought. I mean you mentioned reproductive isolation, perhaps you also forgot to add geographic isolation too? This must be a joke.



Posting internet memes doth not proof make.



I've got a giant textbook on molecular cell biology that i used in grad school. After 5 years of reading it, i have not come across your "concrete" proof. I love how you folks run out of steam and then start pointing us to books we already have and probably have read far more than you have even seen it. If you can find any such books please point me to them, i'm sure between my former grad school, science colleagues and library... i would be able to get my hands on it.



I got exhausted just reading the nonsense you put up there. Here is a simple question based on your illogic about DNA homology being proof of evolution... man shares about 50% of its DNA with a maize cob, did we evolve from the same ancestor? Yes or no?

For the whole maize cob attempt at deflection. Well the concept of abiogenesis on which the theory of evolution relies on states that their is a singular common ancestor for all life forms. Homology points out and proves this is true so using common sense logically if we share such a matching structure then we are not quite all that different . We should have a similar ancestor through which micro evolution and macro evolution which i have proved led to the various physiological and cellular differences. Furthermore correction i never ran out of steam it was a build up. You dont seem to understand what you spent 5 years of our life studying. That begot the question Are you a learner? and with regards to my writing style it is a forum i have things to do other than selectively ensuring my commas and full stops are in order.I dont think this is fair i feel you seem disadvantaged as you do not understand my arguments. Okay i will yield defeat if you can break up and disprove the evident correlation between homology common descent and how thy support or prove the occurrence of micro macro evolution. . Lemme break it downabiogenesis is the reason the evolution theory exists . Homology proves this by the excessive similarities in RNA codes this show that we are similar hence on a less complex level of life form we must have been the same with most other life form hence the theory of common decent. For more complex life forms to develop from these simple similar life forms evolution and specialization must take place. Hence we cant just be created for nothing and for such to happen it must span billions of years hence you bible is a joke. Just so you know Homology is as factual as the existence of oxygen you have more chance in proving you can walk on water than proving it wrong. It is factual to the point of 2+2=4

1ord: Tactic of deflection again!! it seems you can not be reasoned with. I don't blame you it is a fact that ignorant people are less likely to believe in truths that do not connote to belief system. It would cause cognitive dissonance .

I very clearly articulated the reasons your points made no sense. You spent your entire response abusing me... lol typical.

1ord:
You clearly picked the early flaws in my argument which were just a build up then when i pull strong at the end you just dismiss my whole write up. You make no attempt at even recognizing my strong point you just dismiss it . You make no attempt at recognizing the facts because they are in my favor.

Well at least here we have an atheist who agrees his "argument" was fraught with flaws. We're getting somewhere.

1ord:
Your attempts at any intellectual debate at best seem a play on words i literally have to spend 20 mins trying to obtain any substantive points from you The only Thing worth replying is your take on polypidy. Furthermore you try to ridicule my right up where i point to the Biology text book, which was just a statement claiming i am backed into a corner.?? I also point out the observable evidence of the big bang you just write it off. How very educated of you You just dismiss facts that don't agree with your beliefs don't you . You must be a beacon of intellectualism within your prehistoric religious circles.

Soooo where is your rebuttal on polyploidy? I mean so many sentences and not even an attempt to shed some light on this?

1ord:
That last paragraph point Towards macro evolution based on it reference to homology which supports proves common decent which in turn is the back bone of macro evolution. You grab my drift. This is why i don't give proofs . Your ilk just dismiss facts but are willing to buy into a God imposed on your ancestors at Gunpoint. "Conquer them with guns and pacify them with religion" A simple imperial strategy. Come at me with well thought out reasoning process i have stated mine given proofs now it is in your court to prove that argument wrong. That is how intellectual constructive arguments work.At the bolded zero proofs you say ? i gave a whole series of reasons and examples but you dismiss them . Kudos

Circular argument. What are you talking about? Can you please try to coherently marshal a point?

I mean see what you wrote... the proof for evolution is homology, which supports common descent which then is the back bone of macro evolution? Weird.

1ord: For the whole maize cob attempt at deflection.

It wasnt an attempt at deflection but a clear question. If you argue that homology is a strong evidence for common descent, then you must agree that we share common descent from a cob of maize since we share homologous genes no? I mean, what is deflection in a serious scientific question?

1ord:
Well the concept of abiogenesis on which the theory of evolution relies on states that their is a singular common ancestor for all life forms.

This is ridiculous and more evidence you have no idea what terms you use. No serious scientist worth his salt takes abiogenesis seriously. Even your fellow atheists here do not believe in it outside of a few wacko birds. To say that the theory of evolution relies on abiogenesis tells me you've never read a biology textbook on evolution... they say no such thing.

1ord:
Homology points out and proves this is true so using common sense logically if we share such a matching structure then we are not quite all that different . We should have a similar ancestor through which micro evolution and macro evolution which i have proved led to the various physiological and cellular differences.

so do we or do we not share a common ancestor with a cob of maize or a banana?

1ord:
Furthermore correction i never ran out of steam it was a build up. You dont seem to understand what you spent 5 years of our life studying. That begot the question Are you a learner? and with regards to my writing style it is a forum i have things to do other than selectively ensuring my commas and full stops are in order.I dont think this is fair i feel you seem disadvantaged as you do not understand my arguments. Okay i will yield defeat if you can break up and disprove the evident correlation between homology common descent and how thy support or prove the occurrence of micro macro evolution. . Lemme break it downabiogenesis is the reason the evolution theory exists . Homology proves this by the excessive similarities in RNA codes this show that we are similar hence on a less complex level of life form we must have been the same with most other life form hence the theory of common decent. For more complex life forms to develop from these simple similar life forms evolution and specialization must take place. Hence we cant just be created for nothing and for such to happen it must span billions of years hence you bible is a joke. Just so you know Homology is as factual as the existence of oxygen you have more chance in proving you can walk on water than proving it wrong. It is factual to the point of 2+2=4

What the heck is specialization?

What do you understand by abiogenesis? Where is the empirical evidence?

No one is arguing about homology... it is the reason we can understand the human body by developing knock out rodents... been there, actually done that. I'm asking a simple question - does homology prove that we share the same ancestor as the cob of maize?

davidylan:

It wasnt an attempt at deflection but a clear question. If you argue that homology is a strong evidence for common descent, then you must agree that we share common descent from a cob of maize since we share homologous genes no? I mean, what is deflection in a serious scientific question?



This is ridiculous and more evidence you have no idea what terms you use. No serious scientist worth his salt takes abiogenesis seriously. Even your fellow atheists here do not believe in it outside of a few wacko birds. To say that the theory of evolution relies on abiogenesis tells me you've never read a biology textbook on evolution... they say no such thing.



so do we or do we not share a common ancestor with a cob of maize or a banana?



What the heck is specialization?

What do you understand by abiogenesis? Where is the empirical evidence?

No one is arguing about homology... it is the reason we can understand the human body by developing knock out rodents... been there, actually done that. I'm asking a simple question - does homology prove that we share the same ancestor as the cob of maize?

Okay it seems you find it hard to understand complex ideas.Not your fault . I will try to simplify my direction of thoughts slowly. Abiogenesis is to the theory of evolution what Energy and particles is to quantum mechanics both theories are built on this foundation. Homology has proved that there is an abundace in similarity of life forms by studying RNA. This similarities point to a very similar at least or exactly the same origin or ancestor. This similar ancestor is what abiogenesis is all about (Common descent) For there to be so much diffrences whilst we share the same ancestor something has to happen . That thing is evolution . Comprhendi? The fact is evolution is based on principle of common ancestors yes my argument on the polypid is might have a few chinks but you need to accept when you have been flawed. The processes that lead up to evolution natural selection and many others have been observed your dismissing them does not absolve the facts. The only reason why anythin in Genetics Biology and medicine makes sense is in the light of evolution . You of all people it seems should know this.Of all my arguments my only weakness is my take on polypidy which i will explain in detail.Speciation occurs by polyploidy. It is perhaps the most agressive form of observable mutation.

polyploidy is when the number of chromosomes in an organism's cell doubles. This means that the organism has more chromosomes than other individuals of the same species, classing it into species of its own speciation. It is evidence of mutation and mutation evidence of evolution. Polypidy has played a major role in the evolution of all angio sperms and little in animal cell or evolution it is characterized by uncontrollable cell divisions or growth. I understand it as the great divide the point in which these similar ancestors we share due to the similarity in structures of RNA took diffrent parts on the evolutionary path of plants ( angiosperms and gymnosperms) angiosperms evolved through the path way of polypidy. And yes homology points to a similar ancestor between Humans and maize.

1ord: Okay it seems you find it hard to understand complex ideas.Not your fault . I will try to simplify my direction of thoughts slowly. Abiogenesis is to the theory of evolution what Energy and particles is to quantum mechanics both theories are built on this foundation.

If you've been here long enough, you should know that invectives don't work on me. Its the tactic atheists use to shut down debate...
Now i think you really need to go back and understand what abiogenesis is before you start bandying it around. I asked a very simple question - the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for abiogenesis is what? You use a term no one has ever witnessed or conducted in a lab as if it is established truth then turn around and accuse others of not understanding complex "ideas"?

1ord:
Homology has proved that there is an abundace in similarity of life forms by studying RNA. This similarities point to a very similar at least or exactly the same origin or ancestor.

It seems we are going in circles here. You dont have to explain homology 95 times, we get it. The question is does homology then prove that humans share common ancestry with a cob of maize? Afterall we do share some genetic homology.

1ord:
This similar ancestor is what abiogenesis is all about (Common descent)

This is illiterate bull... that is why i always insist that anyone who uses a term MUST ensure that they understand it before making a complete fool of themselves... abiogenesis as a theory has nothing to do with common descent... this is how wikipedia interprets abiogenesis - Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.

Abiogenesis deals with how life could have arisen from natural non-living matter... nothing to do with genes or homology at all.

1ord:
For there to be so much diffrences whilst we share the same ancestor something has to happen . That thing is evolution . Comprhendi? The fact is evolution is based on principle of common ancestors yes my argument on the polypid is might have a few chinks but you need to accept when you have been flawed.

Again circular arguments.

1ord:
The processes that lead up to evolution natural selection and many others have been observed your dismissing them does not absolve the facts. The only reason why anythin in Genetics Biology and medicine makes sense is in the light of evolution . You of all people it seems should know this.Of all my arguments my only weakness is my take on polypidy which i will explain in detail.Speciation occurs by polyploidy. It is perhaps the most agressive form of observable mutation.

polyploidy is when the number of chromosomes in an organism's cell doubles. This means that the organism has more chromosomes than other individuals of the same species, classing it into species of its own speciation. It is evidence of mutation and mutation evidence of evolution. Polypidy has played a major role in the evolution of all angio sperms and little in animal cell or evolution it is characterized by uncontrollable cell divisions or growth. I understand it as the great divide the point in which these similar ancestors we share due to the similarity in structures of RNA took diffrent parts on the evolutionary path of plants ( angiosperms and gymnosperms) angiosperms evolved through the path way of polypidy. And yes homology points to a similar ancestor between Humans and maize.

1. polyploidy is extremely rare in mammals... so how on earth does polyploidy explain the extreme biological engineering that is the mammalian structure?

2. if the processes of evolution have been established then WHERE is this evidence?

3. If homology points to a common ancestor between humans and maize... can you explain the divergence that led to the creation of radically disparate species? One with life and the other without? You seem quite incoherent and uneducated as well.

davidylan:

If you've been here long enough, you should know that invectives don't work on me. Its the tactic atheists use to shut down debate...
Now i think you really need to go back and understand what abiogenesis is before you start bandying it around. I asked a very simple question - the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for abiogenesis is what? You use a term no one has ever witnessed or conducted in a lab as if it is established truth then turn around and accuse others of not understanding complex "ideas"?

abiogenesis can not be tested in the lab. like i said you find it difficult to understand complex ideas. Abiogenesis is to the theory of evolution what energy is to the theory of quantum mechanics . Yet has anyone in the scientific community tried to prove the existence of energy with the theory of quantum mechanics. No because they are two very different things. Abiogenesis has been artificially carried out by tanley Miller and Harold Urey who verified that the natural formation of amino acids, components of DNA, and other organic compounds out of inorganic materials under the atmospheric conditions of Primordial Earth. The UV radiations from the Sun would've made it impossible on land. Today, it is generally accepted that Abiogenesis happened in neither land nor oceans, but a combination of both, in mud. Also, the primordial Earth conditions are now thought to be different than those at the time of Miller's experiment, which makes it outdated. Abiogenesis has been obsereved Life's Crucible. Sorry for my apparent incoherent argument i was replying whilst sleepy at 3am.

davidylan:
It seems we are going in circles here. You dont have to explain homology 95 times, we get it. The question is does homology then prove that humans share common ancestry with a cob of maize? Afterall we do share some genetic homology.

Erm if we have similar structures and homology proves similar decent then yes we are from a singular ancestor . Yes.

davidylan:
This is illiterate bull... that is why i always insist that anyone who uses a term MUST ensure that they understand it before making a complete fool of themselves... abiogenesis as a theory has nothing to do with common descent... this is how wikipedia interprets abiogenesis - Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.

Abiogenesis deals with how life could have arisen from natural non-living matter... nothing to do with genes or homology at all.

Sorry this reply was at 3 am i couldn't relay my argument more convincingly as i was sleepy. If abiogenesis says that all life came from inorganic compounds which became a simple life form cant that be common descent. Common descent is the same ancestor . So under early earth conditions abiogenesis says a simple basic life form was synthesised which through evolution became the various different life forms how is this argument wrong.Like i said hmology is the single fact linking all these together unless you can actually prove it wrong you have no chance Please learn to connect the dots.This is why i refer to homology every time because it is a fact that links all these theories together.

davidylan:
Again circular arguments.



1. polyploidy is extremely rare in mammals... so how on earth does polyploidy explain the extreme biological engineering that is the mammalian structure?

2. if the processes of evolution have been established then WHERE is this evidence?

3. If homology points to a common ancestor between humans and maize... can you explain the divergence that led to the creation of radically disparate species? One with life and the other without? You seem quite incoherent and uneducated as well.

We can go at this for hours.I have facts you have opinions. You ridicule my stance each time not really introspecting on the fact that your whole religion is flawed and based on a 2000 year old book. Radioactive dating says it is over 4 billion years old. Referring to question 2. You yourself who seems to have engaged in genetic or biological research know that the theory of evolution is far too complex for me to give a singular proof. You know i have to give proof from micro to macro evolution.I have to mention so many theories on which you will ask for proofs that i will eventually give and you will refute. At best i will call it a trick question. However i will point you to the emperical documented process of evolution.
The Ring species, such as the greenish warbler or salamanders of the genus Ensatina (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v511/n7507/full/nature13285.html) look into this
-The phenomena of polyploidy, which leads to instant speciation
-Reproductive isolation of stickbacks

Concerning question 1.) speciation polypody and the mamalian structure. You know well that mammals are far to complex for polypidy or chromosome division to be the singular explanation for its structure . What your asking me to do is write a fu.cki.ng whole textbook worth pf material proofs and theories which i have to explain individually. I have given proof and stressed myself to answer your questions concerning polypidy earlier where due. Can you simply explain the whole mammalian biology in respect to evolution in just a 10000 WORDS!! That's madness. This is like three large text book worth of proofs you ask for please make reasonable demands.
3.) yes the facts you agree with point to similar ancestor yes . Can we stop with trick questions.

Concerning your demands for proof of macro evolution . The instant speciation via polypidy.
What you want is very minute details. Like to be spoon fed ideas. You make the dots yourself.

1ord: abiogenesis can not be tested in the lab.

So what is the whole point? If it cannot be replicated in the lab then on what basis do you believe that it has anything to do with evolution in the first place? Do you understand the scientific process at all? Essentially you're basing your BELIEF in abiogenesis on blind FAITH!

1ord:
like i said you find it difficult to understand complex ideas.

Oh please shove the nonsense... no boasting but i hold a phd in molecular biology from a top 10 medical school in the US... your pedigree is? I have actually conducted many of the experiments i discuss here... which have you actually seen or been a part of?

1ord:
Abiogenesis is to the theory of evolution what energy is to the theory of quantum mechanics . Yet has anyone in the scientific community tried to prove the existence of energy with the theory of quantum mechanics. No because they are two very different things.

This makes zero sense. No one has tried to prove the existence of energy because we can actually transfer it... we use energy DAILY. Its like saying we dont have to prove that air exists... duh! Air is the very basis for our existence so why do i need to go to the lab to prove air? You generate heat energy just typing illiterate bull here so that there is proof that energy exists.

To say that you don't need to prove abiogenesis in the lab is just laughable nonsense.

1ord:
Abiogenesis has been artificially carried out by tanley Miller and Harold Urey who verified that the natural formation of amino acids, components of DNA, and other organic compounds out of inorganic materials under the atmospheric conditions of Primordial Earth.

that is false... and you can check many old threads here where the Miller/Urey experiment has been discussed in fine detail. For starters, it is not true that the early earth was reducing in nature. Miller had to make that assumption because the mere presence of oxygen would destroy any chance of making any amino acids. Secondly, hydrogen does not exist as an element on the planet. It very easily dissipates due to its low density.

These are facts you need to appraise yourself of before you go on spouting about experiments you have never truly read about. I had a copy of their paper, i can share with you if you're interested.

Lastly, miller/urey created the smallest amino acids, all of which where in a rotational form not present in actual biological tissues. More importantly... miller/urey DID NOT demonstrate abiogenesis, to do that you'd have to explain how the amino acids led to the creation of DNA/RNA which are the most critical components of the cell.

1ord:
The UV radiations from the Sun would've made it impossible on land. Today, it is generally accepted that Abiogenesis happened in neither land nor oceans, but a combination of both, in mud. Also, the primordial Earth conditions are now thought to be different than those at the time of Miller's experiment, which makes it outdated. Abiogenesis has been obsereved (Earth, "Life's Crucible", February 1998, p.34)[7] SOrry for my apparent incoherent argument i was replying whilst sleepy at 3am.

I'm glad you admit the utter incoherence and illogic of much of your arguments. First miller/urey demonstrated abiogenesis, next they actually did not and their experiment was just a complete waste of time? Which is it?

You reference Peter Radestky's REVIEW PAPER (note this is a review and not a description of an actual scientific study) to claim that abiogenesis has been observed. Where? Can you point us to the ACTUAL study where this was confirmed?

1ord:
Erm if we have similar structures and homology proves similar decent then yes we are from a singular ancestor . Yes.

I then ask a question, if similar homology is all we need to prove common descent then can you lucidly explain to us what the evolutionary pressures where that led to the creation of a specie with life (humans) and that with none (the maize cob)?

1ord:
Sorry this reply was at 3 am i couldn't relay my argument more convincingly as i was sleepy. If abiogenesis says that all life came from inorganic compounds which became a simple life form cant that be common descent. Common descent is the same ancestor . So under early earth conditions abiogenesis says a simple basic life form was synthesised which through evolution became the various different life forms how is this argument wrong.Like i said hmology is the single fact linking all these together unless you can actually prove it wrong you have no chance Please learn to connect the dots.

there are no dots to connect. You are utterly confused, completely misinformed and pushing something you have clearly not studied in any great depth. Look at the highlights for example... what on God's precious earth does that word salad mean? We have not even established that abiogenesis is a serious scientific theory and yet you're using it to support the idea of common descent? Please come back when you have read up some more... this is seriously disappointing.

By the way... i note you had nothing to say with regard to your rambling on about polyploidy... my question still stands and i'm waiting for a response. Too many people just throwing about highfalutin words they just picked up from the web.

Davidylan and iord talking out of their behinds.



Go back to the topic. Atheism is not science.

Atheism vs christianity vs islam on morality.

Cheers01: Davidylan and iord talking out of their behinds.



Go back to the topic. Atheism is not science.

Atheism vs christianity vs islam on morality.

i'm simply responding to 1ord's ridiculous comments really. I think the thread is sufficiently old to stop worrying about whether you are on topic or not. Besides, the only person struggling to make atheism be about superior scientific knowledge is 1ord. Unfortunately he is doing such a bad job of it as to wonder if he himself may need to question his level of intellect.

davidylan:

So what is the whole point? If it cannot be replicated in the lab then on what basis do you believe that it has anything to do with evolution in the first place? Do you understand the scientific process at all? Essentially you're basing your BELIEF in abiogenesis on blind FAITH!



Oh please shove the nonsense... no boasting but i hold a phd in molecular biology from a top 10 medical school in the US... your pedigree is? I have actually conducted many of the experiments i discuss here... which have you actually seen or been a part of?



This makes zero sense. No one has tried to prove the existence of energy because we can actually transfer it... we use energy DAILY. Its like saying we dont have to prove that air exists... duh! Air is the very basis for our existence so why do i need to go to the lab to prove air? You generate heat energy just typing illiterate bull here so that there is proof that energy exists.

To say that you don't need to prove abiogenesis in the lab is just laughable nonsense.



that is false... and you can check many old threads here where the Miller/Urey experiment has been discussed in fine detail. For starters, it is not true that the early earth was reducing in nature. Miller had to make that assumption because the mere presence of oxygen would destroy any chance of making any amino acids. Secondly, hydrogen does not exist as an element on the planet. It very easily dissipates due to its low density.

These are facts you need to appraise yourself of before you go on spouting about experiments you have never truly read about. I had a copy of their paper, i can share with you if you're interested.

Lastly, miller/urey created the smallest amino acids, all of which where in a rotational form not present in actual biological tissues. More importantly... miller/urey DID NOT demonstrate abiogenesis, to do that you'd have to explain how the amino acids led to the creation of DNA/RNA which are the most critical components of the cell.



I'm glad you admit the utter incoherence and illogic of much of your arguments. First miller/urey demonstrated abiogenesis, next they actually did not and their experiment was just a complete waste of time? Which is it?

You reference Peter Radestky's REVIEW PAPER (note this is a review and not a description of an actual scientific study) to claim that abiogenesis has been observed. Where? Can you point us to the ACTUAL study where this was confirmed?



I then ask a question, if similar homology is all we need to prove common descent then can you lucidly explain to us what the evolutionary pressures where that led to the creation of a specie with life (humans) and that with none (the maize cob)?



there are no dots to connect. You are utterly confused, completely misinformed and pushing something you have clearly not studied in any great depth. Look at the highlights for example... what on God's precious earth does that word salad mean? We have not even established that abiogenesis is a serious scientific theory and yet you're using it to support the idea of common descent? Please come back when you have read up some more... this is seriously disappointing.

By the way... i note you had nothing to say with regard to your rambling on about polyploidy... my question still stands and i'm waiting for a response. Too many people just throwing about highfalutin words they just picked up from the web.

Yes i dont know much about polypidy i have accepted that much bt the fact is that these theories have more substance backing them than a 2000 year old book that is fact. How do you expect the experiments carried out by miller and co in present day conditions to simulate and synthesise a proceure that occured billions of years ago.You of all people must realize that the conditions of the environment would have undergone massive change . And i do accept that the research is questionable but the fact remains that the experiment proved that organic matter can be synthesized from inorganic matter.They did it they observed i it was reported. They didn't need to synthesize a life form . The needed to show that indeed it is possible that life begot from inorganic matter and they actually proved it. I have given numerous proofs of evolution under which they were observed . I lack better understanding of polypidy in mammals however the other examples i can clarify. Well Whether you choose to believe abiogenesis is serious or not organic matter has been synthesised from inorganic matter. Take it or leave its a fact. Furthermore there are living organisms described as hybrid,. A cross between plant and an animal. Hence it was probably specialization that led the difference.If organisms exist with both plant and animal properties hence our common ancestor might have possessed both propertes . Furthermore plants and anmals are eukaryotes See this paper "Divergence time estimates for the early history of animal phyla and the origin of plants, animals and fungi" for information on the divergence estimates (I'm not sure if there are more recent papers discussing this) but it is a very long and strenuous task you ask of me

Plants, animals and fungi aredistinct from eubacteria and archaebacteria, which are prokaryotes. The difference being in the composition of the cell, particularly a nucleus contained within a membrane for eukaryotes, along with other membrane bound organelles, e.g. chloroplasts. They all share a common ancestor, according to the paper above, this ancestor split 1.576 (billion years ago) +/- 88 (Million years ago) . They form distinct groups known as Kingdoms under Linnaean based biological classification; the Fungi, Plantae and Animalia.
Plants have chloroplasts in their cells, which provide the ability to produce energy via photosynthesis. It is thought that the chloroplast resulted from a symbiotic relationship between early plants and a cyanobacteria in that they both relied on each other for survival and so coevolved. Animals don't contain chloroplasts and instead contain an organelle called the mitochondria (although most plants also have mitochondria), which is also thought to have been a bacterial endosymbiont, probably related to rikettsias.
Chloroplasts are thought to have evolved from a single endosymbiotic event in Archaeplastida, although there are evidence to suggest some secondary endosymbiotic events.The actual pressures that caused the various diversification in down the evolutionary path would have been resources such as light. And the need to move. The sea squirt (with a tadpole-like shape) contains a ganglion 'brain' in its head, which it digests after attaching itself to a rock and becoming stationary, forming an anemone-like organism. This has been used as evidence that the purpose of brain and nervous tissue is primarily to produce movement.Hence the need for resources or to aquire resources would have led to the divergence.

Cheers01: Davidylan and iord talking out of their behinds.



Go back to the topic. Atheism is not science.

Atheism vs christianity vs islam on morality.

Sorry you do know you can still make a comment regarding the original topic. We are not in any way hindering you.

DAVID!!!

My goot friend. How have you been? I missed ya munch!!

1ord: Yes[b] i dont know much about polypidy[/b] i have accepted that much

Then what's the point wasting my time here? You run around mewling about how polyploidy is evidence for evolution when it turns out you don't understand it at all! Kinda makes it hard to take anything you have to say seriously. That's about the third time its turned out you were bandying around words you barely understood. I think you should go back and have a good read before engaging in this topic again.

wiegraf: My goot friend. How have you been? I missed ya munch!!

lol i'm good and you? just busy with work... besides with the likes of 1ord here, doesnt seem like i have missed much.

1ord: How do you expect the experiments carried out by miller and co in present day conditions to simulate and synthesise a proceure that occured billions of years ago.You of all people must realize that the conditions of the environment would have undergone massive change . And i do accept that the research is questionable but the fact remains that the experiment proved that organic matter can be synthesized from inorganic matter.[/b]They did it they observed i it was reported. They didn't need to synthesize a life form . T[b]he needed to show that indeed it is possible that life begot from inorganic matter and they actually proved it.

Since when did glycine become synonymous with "life begot from inorganic matter"? You do know that glycine is actually synthesized in labs today in the tons and yet we still have no evidence of creating life in the lab? The problem is that you (1) have very little understanding of the experiment and (2) spend a lot of time misconstruing terms. The miller/urey experiment tried to show, that you can synthesize amino acids in a test tube... that is NOT the same as organic matter. It is important to understand the meaning of the term "ORGANIC MATTER". Wikipedia describes it as "basic structures are created from cellulose, tannin, cutin, and lignin, along with other various proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates".

So where were the lipids, carbohydrates, lignin... created by miller/urey?

1ord:
I have given numerous proofs of evolution under which they were observed.

Yeah, you mean you've simply incoherently flung around internet memes?

1ord:
I lack better understanding of polypidy in mammals however the other examples i can clarify. Well Whether you choose to believe abiogenesis is serious or not organic matter has been synthesised from inorganic matter. Take it or leave its a fact. Furthermore there are living organisms described as hybrid,. A cross between plant and an animal. Hence it was probably specialization that led the difference.If organisms exist with both plant and animal properties hence our common ancestor might have possessed both propertes . Furthermore plants and anmals are eukaryotes See this paper "Divergence time estimates for the early history of animal phyla and the origin of plants, animals and fungi" for information on the divergence estimates (I'm not sure if there are more recent papers discussing this) but it is a very long and strenuous task you ask of me

Plants, animals and fungi aredistinct from eubacteria and archaebacteria, which are prokaryotes. The difference being in the composition of the cell, particularly a nucleus contained within a membrane for eukaryotes, along with other membrane bound organelles, e.g. chloroplasts. They all share a common ancestor, according to the paper above, this ancestor split 1.576 (billion years ago) +/- 88 (Million years ago) . They form distinct groups known as Kingdoms under Linnaean based biological classification; the Fungi, Plantae and Animalia.
Plants have chloroplasts in their cells, which provide the ability to produce energy via photosynthesis. It is thought that the chloroplast resulted from a symbiotic relationship between early plants and a cyanobacteria in that they both relied on each other for survival and so coevolved. Animals don't contain chloroplasts and instead contain an organelle called the mitochondria (although most plants also have mitochondria), which is also thought to have been a bacterial endosymbiont, probably related to rikettsias.
Chloroplasts are thought to have evolved from a single endosymbiotic event in Archaeplastida, although there are evidence to suggest some secondary endosymbiotic events.The actual pressures that caused the various diversification in down the evolutionary path would have been resources such as light. And the need to move. The sea squirt (with a tadpole-like shape) contains a ganglion 'brain' in its head, which it digests after attaching itself to a rock and becoming stationary, forming an anemone-like organism. This has been used as evidence that the purpose of brain and nervous tissue is primarily to produce movement.Hence the need for resources or to aquire resources would have led to the divergence.

this is mentally draining nonsense.

davidylan:

Since when did glycine become synonymous with "life begot from inorganic matter"? You do know that glycine is actually synthesized in labs today in the tons and yet we still have no evidence of creating life in the lab? The problem is that you (1) have very little understanding of the experiment and (2) spend a lot of time misconstruing terms. The miller/urey experiment tried to show, that you can synthesize amino acids in a test tube... that is NOT the same as organic matter. It is important to understand the meaning of the term "ORGANIC MATTER". Wikipedia describes it as "basic structures are created from cellulose, tannin, cutin, and lignin, along with other various proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates".

So where were the lipids, carbohydrates, lignin... created by miller/urey?



Yeah, you mean you've simply incoherently flung around internet memes?



this is mentally draining nonsense.

Ahh my friend you truly disappoint me amino acids are clearly organic matter http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid since you use wikepedia as a reputable source ( which I scoof at) that link clearly describes what amino acids are since you seem to lack a better understanding of my argument. I mean it is difficult to take you seriously. How can any reputable academic claim that amino acids are not organic matter given the large overwhelming evidence of the contrary. You are full of bull..... @retaining to your questions on the pressures that led to organisms with or without life ( what are the prerequisites for life what is more special in your class of mammals that you feel the need to class other species as lifeless) How narcistic. However I have given the pressures and how the celss evolved independently given the pressures and have even given an example of the reverse case ( tadpole organism) as proof however you call it mentally draining because you don't understand. Furthermore the fact that you dare say amino acids are not organic is such bull..... you can not be serious. You have to be troling like even a pre course biology takers in uni should be aware of how un serious you sound.