plaetton:

Apparently, you are sure not one of the humans who use their Brian's all the time.
You do use it once in a while, but not very often.

In fact, I do remember one or two instances where you used your brain.
Example, remember when you wrote that should that biblical tales of Adam and Eve, talking snakes and talking donkeys etc, were too silly to be taken literally by anyone with a brain.

Example 2: remember when you wrote that the words of the bible, as expressed in the different versions and editions, were confusing to you.

If at your age you have figured out and even bold enough to write that your bible contain fairy tales that contradict and confuse you, then one wonders if you are at all using your faculties of thought by hopelessly clinging to , and even defending a worldview that you admit makes no sense to you.

Xcapist:

Joke: I was debating a Creationist and he said, "I won't believe in
evolution until you provide me some evidence."
I paused for a moment and replie, "From when did you start
requiring evidence to believe in things?"

plaetton:
Very hilarious.

Just imagine davidylan, a person who believes all kinds of stone age fairy tales, saying that the big bang theory and the theory of evolution are cons.

This same character accepts micro-evolution, but does not accept macro- evolution, ignorantly forgetting that in nature, the greater(macro) always mirror the lesser(micro) and vice versa, because both micro and macro processes are all dancing to the same cosmic rhythm.

plaetton:

Apparently, you are sure not one of the humans who use their Brian's all the time.
You do use it once in a while, but not very often.

In fact, I do remember one or two instances where you used your brain.
Example, remember when you wrote that that biblical tales of Adam and Eve, talking snakes and talking donkeys etc, were too silly to be taken literally by anyone with a brain.

Example 2: remember when you wrote that the words of the bible, as expressed in the different versions and editions, were confusing to you.

If at your age you have figured out and even bold enough to write that your bible contain fairy tales that contradict and confuse you, then one wonders if you are at all using your faculties of thought by hopelessly clinging to , and even defending a worldview that you admit makes no sense to you.

Xcapist:

Joke: I was debating a Creationist and he said, "I won't believe in
evolution until you provide me some evidence."
I paused for a moment and replied, "From when did you start
requiring evidence to believe in things?"

davidylan:

Because unlike macro-evolution... micro-evolution is testable in the lab and there is empirical proof. I dont need blind faith to believe it like you do.

Apatheist:

davidylan:

Actually the above is nonsensical because it glosses over way too much. Yes bacteria become resistant to antibiotics... but has that ever resulted in a population change? Poor analogy.

More importantly, its obvious the individual you drew the cartoon... and the fellow here who posted it are completely ignorant of what macro evolution is... it is not merely A LOT of changes over a LONG PERIOD of time. That is an oversimplistic, naive and completely ignorant way of defining it. According to wikipedia, macro evolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Micro evolution on the other hand isnt merely small changes over a short period of time, it means smaller evolutionary changes WITHIN a species or population.

Those are very clear, distinct terminologies that need to be taken into account. Perhaps you should understand the terms you use first before posting memes you dont understand.

davidylan:

Because unlike macro-evolution... micro-evolution is testable in the lab and there is empirical proof. I dont need blind faith to believe it like you do.

plaetton:

And this is the one that puzzles and wows me about you.

Again, like I said before, if you were remotely smart enough to realize that micro and macro mirror each other, then you might understand by testing micro-evolution in the lab like you affirm, we learn and get useful insights of evolution at the macro level.
How this escapes you is a big mystery to me.

But I have asked you before, have you heard of telomeres and centromeres, davidylan phd?

Do you need me, sir, to educate you on how telomeres and centromeres conclusively prove the common ancestry of humans with chimpanzees, thus proving macro-evolution?

plaetton:
But I have asked you before, have you heard of telomeres and centromeres, davidylan phd?

Do you need me, sir, to educate you on how telomeres and centromeres conclusively prove the common ancestry of humans with chimpanzees, thus proving macro-evolution?

davidylan:

All these endless debates, conjectures and speculations. Just provide one example of macro evolution and we wont need to continue the musical chairs with the facts. We learn useful insights on how mutations can changes phenotypes WITHIN a species, we learn nothing about how the same change can occur in SEPARATED GENE POOLS because we have NEVER actually seen that happen. To assume that because bacteria can become resistant to a particular antibiotic is enough reason to suspend reasoning in claiming that a maize cob and an elephant come from the same ancestor is just nonsensical blind faith.

davidylan:

All these endless debates, conjectures and speculations. Just provide one example of macro evolution and we wont need to continue the musical chairs with the facts. We learn useful insights on how mutations can changes phenotypes WITHIN a species, we learn nothing about how the same change can occur in SEPARATED GENE POOLS because we have NEVER actually seen that happen. To assume that because bacteria can become resistant to a particular antibiotic is enough reason to suspend reasoning in claiming that a maize cob and an elephant come from the same ancestor is just nonsensical blind faith.

plaetton:

This is rubbish coming from one who is supposed to be a scientist.
Can you say same thing about the germ theory or the theory of gravitation, or the theories of friction and motion?

In science, a theory actually carries more weight than facts. facts can be right or wrong, a theory , on the other hand is an accumulated body of vetted and tested ideas over an indefinite period of time .

Now, I ask again, do you need me to properly educate you, as a man of science that you are , on how Telomeres and centromeres prove , without a shred of doubt, that we share a common acncestry with chimpanzees and other apes?

davidylan:

I actually am a scientist and i have the credentials to prove it. So save us the boring idiocy.

I asked you quite clearly, can you provide evidence for how telomeres prove that man and a cob of maize share the same ancestor? How is that so hard to do? You would have avoided generating so much unnecessary heat. I dont need telomeres to tell me that man and apes share over 99% of their genes. That is low hanging fruit that ignorant bloviators like you love to whine about, because you have ready-made websites to copy. Man shares about 66.7% of our DNA with a cob of maize... how do telomeres help us understand that? Now that would be more interesting to explain. I'm waiting.

plaetton:
I can tolerate your ignorance and bellicosity, but your dishonesty is what really betrays you.

It is obviously by your artful and disgraceful dodging that you do not even know what Telemeres and centromeres are.
If you did, you would not be talking about humans and chimpanzees sharing 99% of their genes.
That was not the point I was trying to educate you on.
And you are a micro biologist?

davidylan:

its ok to say you dont know. You know i will not play musical chairs with you.

Here are the facts...

1. Humans share about 99.6% of DNA with chimps/apes... you do NOT need telomeres to show that.

2. Where the REAL WORK is, is showing us how the exact same telomeres prove that humans and a cob of maize (who share about 67% of DNA) are descendants of the same common ancestor. Now that is what a TRUE scientist wants to tackle.

You can continue pretending you've got something serious to say while i chuckle over here.

plaetton:

Your dishonesty knows no bounds.
Again, this is way beyond simple genetic similarity with chimps/apes, it is about common ancestry, something that you deny.

Do you not deny macro-evolution? Do you not deny that humans and chimps have a common ancestry?

C'mon, be a man and utter a simple truth.

Again, if you really knew what telomeres and centromeres were, you would know exactly how they prove, without any iota of doubt, that humans and apes have an immediate (not distant) common ancestry.

I don't know what could be worse than arguing with someone who is dumb, ignorant and dishonest.

davidylan:

Well then since you know so much about it... why dont you show us how they prove, without any iota of doubt, that humans and corn have a common ancestry (the sneaky attempt to differentiate between distant and immediate ancestry is senseless. ancestry is ancestry)?

Why is that so hard to do?

See, this is what you are struggling too hard to avoid... if indeed telomeres are a fantastic and scientifically valid means of proving common ancestry then why is the exact same telomeres unable to tell us anything about OTHER organisms with which your theory claims we also share common ancestry? Why only humans v. apes? Is your theory so limited?

plaetton:

You forget that you are the m.o.r.on who does not accept macro-evolution.
One proof of macro-evolution is good enough.

This is why I keep saying that your scientific credentials are fraudulent, and I mean that without prejudice.

Anyone that is inculcated into the scientific methods and processes would not ask such really dumb and kindergarten questions and the kind of associations that you make.
If telomeres sufficiently prove human and ape ancestry, that is sufficient enough to first show that species evolve over time from other species. Period.
If we find any anomalies, again we employ the same scientific process to patiently study it. Science is not in a hurry because science is not nervous about what it discovers and what it has to defend.

I ask you again, do you deny macro-evolution?
If a piece of feather floats in the air, does it disprove or discredit the theory of gravitation?

Davidylan, What bewilders me most is that I have to use kindergarten words to argue with someone who is supposed to be a scientist.
Nigeria never ceases to produce wonders.

plaetton:

You forget that you are the m.o.r.on who does not accept macro-evolution.
One proof of macro-evolution is good enough.

davidylan:

the "proof" is useless if i cannot use it to compare ancestry for other organisms. For example, is the same theory applicable to snakes v. crocodiles for example? Why not? Afterall they both also have telomeres too so what is different? Its just common sense.

You do not need to worry about my scientific credentials, my first paper published in 2009, in the American Journal of Respiratory Cell Molecular Biology has been cited 106 times. Where is yours?

Xcapist:

Sir Dr. Davidylan you're a very intelligent and interesting person, I give you that, I believe you have accomplished a lot for yourself and for science, but gaskiya at this point you're spoiling the fun for the rest of us that are here on this thread for just the fun. There are A LOT of serious threads for serious argument out there. Can we have this one just for gags? You can jump in and lash at atheists too - in a funny way. You don't have to always take things too seriously, because at the end of it all, we're all human.

davidylan:

My brother, thank you. I will only post jokes from now on.

Tallesty1: Atheist: What’s this fly doing in my soup?

Waiter: Praying.

Atheist: Very funny. I can’t eat this. Take it back.

Waiter: You see? The fly’s prayers were answered.

Apatheist: There's nothing sadder than an atheist in a casket-- all dressed up and nowhere to go.