Well, I wanted to post this in the science and the technology section, but there were no subsections on abstract and applied sciences(for pete's sake? Which kind of thing is that? I mean smh)


So I decided to post this here.

This is what I got from a book I was reading:

THE SCOPE OF BIOCHEMISTRY

...The word life was employed to characterize the condition of objects as diverse as grass, trees, insects, worms, fish...humans. Each proceeds through a life cycle, reproduces its own kind, and responds in a variety of ways to external stimuli. Over the course of a few millennia, "living" forms were classified, first in terms of characteristics visible to the unaided eye, i.e., their gross comparative anatomy, and later with the aid of the light microscope...
This relatively primitive body of information, together with increased understanding of the fossil record, sufficed to permit formulation by Darwin of the most sweeping and compelling biological generalization of all, THE CONCEPT OF HISTORIC AND CONTINUING BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION.

-culled from PRINCIPLES OF BIOCHEMISTRY.

Does anyone see the disparity in the two bolded portions?
Or should I elaborate?
How will these scientists claim that living organisms reproduce according to their kind,(meaning dogs give birth to dogs, cats give birth to cats, humans give birth to humans, generally) and then go on to say that darwins concept is compelling? The concept that states the exact opposite of what they have stated? The concept that says that somewhere in the supposed millions of years, men arose from ape-like ancestors.
Don't buffer the situation.
How can simple genetic variations give rise to a new 'kind' of organism?

How they arrived at this preposterous conclusion beats me.




PS: we cannot speak of biochemistry and biology without speaking of the origin of life itself.

Yawn,

This bullsheit again?



Evolution is a well grounded scientific theory. Go siddon if you no like am

*following quietly*

Logicboy03: Yawn,

This bullsheit again?



Evolution is a well grounded scientific theory. Go siddon if you no like am

thank God I have enough sense not to believe hogwash and speculation that leads to contradictions and confusion and foolishness.


There's nothing scientific about that theory. I choose not to have blind faith. I no like am. And more people don begin to question am. So in real life, you're loosing. Good evening.

Joshthefirst: thank God I have enough sense not to believe hogwash and speculation that leads to contradictions and confusion and foolishness.


There's nothing scientific about that theory. I choose not to have blind faith. I no like am. And more people don begin to question am. So in real life, you're loosing. Good evening.

*losing

Logicboy03:


*losing

very funny.

Where's evil brain?

Logicboy03:


*losing

.

Athiests should come and defend evolution nah, abi google don deny they?

[quote author=Joshthefirst]Well, I wanted to post this in the science and the technology section, but there were no subsections on abstract and applied sciences(for pete's sake? Which kind of thing is that? I mean smh)


So I decided to post this here.

This is what I got from a book I was reading:



-culled from PRINCIPLES OF BIOCHEMISTRY.

Does anyone see the disparity in the two bolded portions?

no disparity sire, you are the one who failed to understand what u posted.

Or should I elaborate?

...

How will these scientists claim that living organisms reproduce according to their kind,(meaning dogs give birth to dogs, cats give birth to cats, humans give birth to humans, generally) and then go on to say that darwins concept is compelling? The concept that states the exact opposite of what they have stated?

i'm sure you are not a science student, Cos if you are, u wont make such a comment. Let me explain, darwins concept is about evolution. E.g, you are used to hot weather here in africa and then u move to the north pole (where you heard jesus will land at his 2nd coming, and if maybe their is gravitational jam between jupiter and mars), u will have to adapt to the conditions there, lets say by growing more hair or an extra layer of scale to minimise heat loss. Then u have an offspring. Will you as human give birth to an ape? Your offspring too will develop what u have done to adapt too, OVER TIME, and the trend continues till maybe there comes a particular generation with hair all over their body (of which by then, the son would have moved 1km). Thats evolution. In analogy, an assignment for you, find out why a white man dies easily of malaria than a black man.

The concept that says that somewhere in the supposed millions of years, men arose from ape-like ancestors.

^^^

Don't buffer the situation.
How can simple genetic variations give rise to a new 'kind' of organism?

you wanna know? Google the implications of the atomic bombs dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki..or better still, expose yourself to moderate levels of radiation for a month..

How they arrived at this preposterous conclusion beats me.

how you failed to use your logic is commendable...

PS: we cannot speak of biochemistry and biology without speaking of the origin of life itself.

yeah, if adam and even were black or white, how come there exist different races with different colours of skin??

^oooAnd you only prove the fact that the concept is hogwash. The first part of what you described is adaptation, which is a fact.

How you made the conclusion that humans adaptating over time will lead to non-human kinds arising is beyond me and utterly preposterous and silly.

Adaptation is only speculated to be a part of the so called evolutionary process.

Evolution is unscientific hogwash. It cannot be observed(change of kind, which is different from speciation or adaptation or variation, which is the crux of the evolutionary conclusion, cannot be observed), it cannot be experimented on.

It is hogwash and speculation.
Why would you believe that you are a distant relative of a bonobo?

One more thing, adam and eve had the complete set of genes that gave rise to the different variations we see today. Man has always been and will always continue to be man.

Joshthefirst: One more thing, adam and eve had the complete set of genes that gave rise to the different variations we see today. Man has always been and will always continue to be man.

That is crap....adam and eve never existed......two hebrew peeps couldn't jave been the first people alive.

No biological or archeological evodence for that crap

Logicboy03:


That is crap....adam and eve never existed......two hebrew peeps couldn't jave been the first people alive.

No biological or archeological evodence for that crap

they were not hebrew, they were men.

We have the most reliable records that prove human descent and origins.


There is also no biological or archeological evidence to prove you're related to a bonobo. I wonder why you strongly believe the men who tell you that. The concept has led to unanswered questions and discrepancies and confusion.

Op, considering you're clinically re.tarded your confusion is understandable. Hint; evolution does NOT imply parents give birth to the members of other species within a generation. Not at all.....

As I'm not a special needs teacher I'll leave you to your folly.

Josh, any time ure less busy, you can visit this site. www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/.

Incase you still don't know like your brother oladegbu, common descent is NOT a scientific theory, it is a scientific FACT. The evidences in support are just so overwhelming.
so, I wonder why u keep asking if we r related to this or that.

No serious biologist doubts it.

Joshthefirst: they were not hebrew, they were men.

We have the most reliable records that prove human descent and origins.


There is also no biological or archeological evidence to prove you're related to a bonobo. I wonder why you strongly believe the men who tell you that. The concept has led to unanswered questions and discrepancies and confusion.

Lol, was that from asnweringgenesis? I mean the bolded

wiegraf: Op, considering you're clinically re.tarded your confusion is understandable. Hint; evolution does NOT imply parents give birth to the members of other species within a generation. Not at all.....

As I'm not a special needs teacher I'll leave you to your folly.

when did I imply this happens within a generation? It seems you are the one with special needs.

The concept that states the exact opposite of what they have stated? The concept that says that somewhere
in the supposed millions of years, men arose from ape-like ancestors.
Don't buffer the situation.

Maybe you didn't even read the op. Its good to read the op wiegraf before lashing out in butthurt because of a belief scientists hold to be true today without scientific proof.

Joshthefirst: One more thing, adam and eve had the complete set of genes that gave rise to the different variations we see today. Man has always been and will always continue to be man.

ahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!! i have heard it all. now the bible is complete

Joshthefirst: they were not hebrew, they were men.

We have the most reliable records that prove human descent and origins.


There is also no biological or archeological evidence to prove you're related to a bonobo. I wonder why you strongly believe the men who tell you that. The concept has led to unanswered questions and discrepancies and confusion.

Adam is a Hebrew name. There are older languages than Hebrew. The first man could not have a Hebrew name.

All animals are related. Even your bible has a rudimentary understanding of that....God made all creatures.

Evolution is why we can cure new strains of cold and viruses. Doctors understand that bacteria and viruses evolve and so, one must use new drugs to combat them.

Try using common cold drugs of the 80s and 90s. You will die

Logicboy03:

Adam is a Hebrew name. There are older languages than Hebrew. The first man could not have a Hebrew name.

All animals are related. Even your bible has a rudimentary understanding of that....God made all creatures.

Evolution is why we can cure new strains of cold and viruses. Doctors understand that bacteria and viruses evolve and so, one must use new drugs to combat them.

Try using common cold drugs of the 80s and 90s. You will die

how many times do we go through this? The translation of adam is man. How can you say they were hebrew when there was no such thing as hebrew then? Nawa for you.

"God made all creatures" is different from "we all evolved from a parent self-replicating organism".

Adaptation is the reason we cure new strains of cold viruses. The viruses remain viruses, we remain human.

You only speculate adaptation to be part of the speculated evolutionary process. It is not. What scientists did in the lab was to show speciation(due to adaptation) of organisms and then conclude that accumulation of this speciation over a long period of time will lead to the rising of a different kind of organism. Preposterous.

Of course we're all made of cells. But to conclude that we ultimately share the same physical ancestry with a toad or a bonobo and the reason we have consciousness and our consciousness is much more advanced and deeper than even the closest so called relative is because we evolved bigger brains is preposterous.
Everything we know about historical homo sapiens show that he has been the same throughout the ages. Every so called fossil we have discovered show that men have been smart and conscious and other organisms and mammals have been "less conscious"
The reason we have accumulated this knowledge and built on the foundations of science and tech in this contemporary world is simply because no knowledge is lost. We exchange knowledge more efficiently and we have learned to build and not forget and destroy.

Man will keep building on science and tech, evolutionists, and creationists will keep doing that, but I will never subscribe to that pathetic concept. You shouldn't, because its stupid.

Joshthefirst: ^oooAnd you only prove the fact that the concept is hogwash. The first part of what you described is adaptation, which is a fact.

and adaptation as a fact leads to what??

How you made the conclusion that humans adaptating over time will lead to non-human kinds arising is beyond me and utterly preposterous and silly.

did you understand that post at all?? It's going to be the same way future humans will see us as non-humans...Find out what vestigal organs mean..

Adaptation is part of the so called evolutionary process.

modified

Evolution is unscientific hogwash. It cannot be observed(change of kind, which is different from speciation or adaptation or variation, which is the crux of the evolutionary conclusion, cannot be observed), it cannot be experimented on.

it takes time...and again, why is quinine no longer effective in treating malaria??

It is hogwash and speculation.
Why would you believe that you are a distant relative of a bonobo?

why would you believe you originated from 'fiction'??

Logicboy03:

Adam is a Hebrew name. There are older languages than Hebrew. The first man could not have a Hebrew name.

So who says that he did?

DK Jaleel:
and adaptation as a fact leads to what??


did you understand that post at all?? It's going to be the same way future humans will see us as non-humans...Find out what vestigal organs mean..


modified


it takes time...and again, why is quinine no longer effective in treating malaria??


why would you believe you originated from 'fiction'??

no such thing as vestigial organs mehn. Stop living in the past.

As I said, quinine is no longer effective because the mosquitoes have adapted. How does the mosquitoes adapting to new environments make it less of a mosquito than its ancestor?

Adaptation is a fact, your speculation makes you unreasonably conclude that adaptation will lead to entirely new kinds of organisms arising. Which is nonsense.

Joshthefirst: no such thing as vestigial organs mehn. Stop living in the past.

As I said, quinine is no longer effective because the mosquitoes have adapted. How does the mosquitoes adapting to new environments make it less of a mosquito than its ancestor?

Adaptation is a fact, your speculation makes you unreasonably conclude that adaptation will lead to entirely new kinds of organisms arising. Which is nonsense.

no more arguments. End of story..

DK Jaleel:
no more arguments. End of story..

good no more. That I can survive smallpox because I have the vaccine and I'm immune makes me less/more human than my great grandfather's brother who died of smallpox because he wasn't immune.

Joshthefirst: how many times do we go through this? The translation of adam is man. How can you say they were hebrew when there was no such thing as hebrew then? Nawa for you.

"God made all creatures" is different from "we all evolved from a parent self-replicating organism".

Adaptation is the reason we cure new strains of cold viruses. The viruses remain viruses, we remain human.

You only speculate adaptation to be part of the speculated evolutionary process. It is not. What scientists did in the lab was to show speciation(due to adaptation) of organisms and then conclude that accumulation of this speciation over a long period of time will lead to the rising of a different kind of organism. Preposterous.

Of course we're all made of cells. But to conclude that we ultimately share the same physical ancestry with a toad or a bonobo and the reason we have consciousness and our consciousness is much more advanced and deeper than even the closest so called relative is because we evolved bigger brains is preposterous.
Everything we know about historical homo sapiens show that he has been the same throughout the ages. Every so called fossil we have discovered show that men have been smart and conscious and other organisms and mammals have been "less conscious"
The reason we have accumulated this knowledge and built on the foundations of science and tech in this contemporary world is simply because no knowledge is lost. We exchange knowledge more efficiently and we have learned to build and not forget and destroy.

Man will keep building on science and tech, evolutionists, and creationists will keep doing that, but I will never subscribe to that pathetic concept. You shouldn't, because its stupid.

Adaptation is part of evolution. Don't you even see how dubious you are to claim that it is not part of evolution.

Keep being ignorant

Logicboy03:


Adaptation is part of evolution. Don't you even see how dubious you are to claim that it is not part of evolution.

Keep being ignorant

he was claiming there is no experiment or evidence to prove evolution, and i tried telling him one of d most obvious examples in recent times..
Imagine him saying mosquito is the causative agent for malaria...and mosquito has adapted to quinine...that guy is a dunce...

DK Jaleel:
he was claiming there is no experiment or evidence to prove evolution, and i tried telling him one of d most obvious examples in recent times..
Imagine him saying mosquito is the causative agent for malaria...and mosquito has adapted to quinine...that guy is a dunce...

He is proud of his ignorance

Logicboy03:


He is proud of his ignorance

I concur. So proud in his ignorance. You tell him Bacteria has been proven to rapidly evolve. He says,




















No, it adapts.

@joshthefirst

Interesting OP and keen eyes.

However there are foundational diggings that must be made.

How do you define kind?

Will your definition of kind cut across species or is kind the equivalent of species to you?