davidylan:

U mean questions like:

1. How did the primordial life that started evolution appear on earth?

2. Where are the intermediate life forms from evolution?

I'd love a "line by line" answer too.

As regards ERVs, i need to sleep - comprehensive questions detailing how appallingly untrue much of that will be coming tomorrow. Pls dont miss it!

But you have a chance to insult me till then. Have a good night.

Mutations and adaptation we can observe . . . why can we not observe macro-evolution?

davidylan:

You just like to shout anyhow . . . pls see below:

Fossilised shrimp show earliest group behaviour

The conga was the world's first dance, it seems. A newly discovered caravan of crustaceans from half a billion years ago shows that group behaviour evolved not long after animals themselves.

Palaeontologists led by Hou Xian-Guang, of Yunnan University, China, discovered fossilised chains of up to 20 crustaceans linked head-to-toe, the earliest record of any collective animal behaviour and perhaps an adaptation to a migratory ocean lifestyle.

"It's showing that, 525 million years ago, we've got really quite sophisticated and potentially complex interaction between different animals," says Derek Siveter, of the University of Oxford, who analysed the fossil along with colleagues at the University of Leicester, UK.

and oh note how the SCIENTISTS (you know those gods you look up to) talk about "sophisticated and complex interactions" between mere crustaceans 525 million yrs ago . . . when they were supposed to have been evolving no? Do we need more evidence that these collection of deluded folks dont really know what they are talking about? Huxley, trying telling the paleontologists in china that they are lying . . .

Quote from: huxley on Today at 01:53:45 AM
1) I don't know. And I don't think the scientific community have definitive answers yet, nor will it be possible to prove categorically where it came from

Good. Now we know that much of the posturing here has been largely in ignorance.

Quote from: huxley on Today at 01:53:45 AM
2) I don't quite understand this. What is intermediate lifeform? Can you explain?

Before the eye fully "evolved" to what it is now, what did it look like before? Before a goat became what we know of it today, what was it like mid-evolution?

noetic:

@ huxley
Again I ask. Are u an evolutionist? for the sake of this thread or is this another meaningless "googled" attack on the bible and creationism.
Cos if u are an avowed evolutionist, I suggest u start from my first poser to evolutionists. Here it is:

I will for the sake of ur effort address some of ur posers. . . . . . .but u need to let me know if u are an evolutionist or not, cos i m least interested in ur uninformed and bitter angst against GOD.
I dont have the habit of digressing issues. That narrative was uncalled for, that was why i didnt bother to go into full details, but merely made u aware.
unless u raise issues that warrant me explaining it, I dont intend to. U can always go to google as usual.

But for the sake of other viewers, it is pertinent i say this: Genesis 1 and 2 differ and compliment each other mainly in the narrative because of their subjects.
Gen 1 describes the creation from God`s view
and Genesis 2 from Adam and eve`s (human) view.  Genesis 1 is largely fulfilled in Genesis 2.
It never mentioned the physical manifestation of light replacing the spiritual light. I only expected u to objectively derive from common sense that since Genesis 1 says
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

(and like i said in my last post addressed to u, Genesis 1 was describing God`s view of creation)
Genesis 2 that u pasted told us none of these things God established in the spirit was manifested until rain fell and Adam toiled the soil.

I believe i have addressed ur concerns about light created in verse 3 by showing u a dictionary acknowledgement of spiritual light orchestrated by God`s spirit. So what are u talking about??I tink u can do better. Is this an acknowledgement of evolution`s fallacy and inability to tell us the origin of life?
please, keep living in ignorance disguised as knowledge.  
was the bible written for the residents of other planets? _{hisses continuously}
Just like the way the evolution concept was built to keep buttressing a big lie, u keep attempting to redefine concepts.
I have defined light for u as obtained in creationism. I have established here (and as ur quote from Genesis 2 shows)that from the human view of the creation, planting and harvesting did not take place until the physical manifestation of certain objects created in Genesis 1. e.g Rain

Why dont u read genesis 2 and have a glimpse of what i am saying?
I expect better from u, not this, considerin ur antecedents. It is either u are distorting the facts or u simply find it difficult to understand my simply illustrated points. Neither is good for an intellectual debate.

I said that the light created in verse 3 is buttressed by your dictionary definition of light. which is: spiritual illumination or awareness; enlightenment.
I also said:  I meant the physical manifestation of some of the things created Genesis 1, was being awaited as is seen in the afore-quoted part of genesis 2, detailing that no plant grew until rain fell. so what are u saying?
That the bible does not acknowledge the creation of the planets does not mean they dont exist. The bible is a succinct summary of God`s inspiration to man.
So can I ask, Does evolutionist inability to explain the origin of life imply that we all jumped here from space?
Guy, i will not give u the luxury of turning this into one of ur meaningless threads.
How does ur question objectively butresses any arguments u have for evolution? How does my answer to this question dispute the reality of creationism? please lets be objective and focussed here?
u and ur fellow evolutionists have said nothing about the origin of life as postulated by evolutionist, while i have given u creationist version of this. . . . . .which is relevant to the purpose the thread was intended,  ,  . . . . .until u do this I dont tink we are making progress.

ur first question makes sense but is very irrelevant,  . . ,  . . .I dont know how my answer reveals the fallacy and lies of evolution. . . . which is my only purpose of contributing to this thread.

ur second is both meaningless and irrelevant.  last time i checked this thread was meant to debate this
For all your meaningless postulations of evolution and indiscreet disregard for God`s word. . . . . . is this all ur knowledge comes to? . . . . . .RUBBISH

huxley:

Yes, the human race is largely ignorant as to the naturalistic origin of life, but that is not to say that we shall for ever remain ignorant. Secondly, the fact that we have no explanation for something or an event does not preclude making further useful prediction/theories about that something

wirinet:

I decided to respond to this thread again because i felt that you cannot squeeze water from a stone no matter how long and hard you try, that is referring to davidylan and co. You can explain evolution to them a thousand times and they would still say you have not answered a single question there are raising.

But i am responding now because of the above statement by huxley whom i respect very much, and a few others. Scientist have very good and sound postulations about the origin of live on earth and the process being repeated on  other planets. It had been dealt with extensively by my mentor - Carl Sagan. But for those who do not know here is my explanation.

Before I explain the naturalistic origin of life as generally accepted by scientists, we have to agree on the definition of life. So What Is Life?

I think the problem we have is that different people has a different definition of life. We have spiritual life, biological life, physical life, and so on. The one we are interested in is biological or organic life. I have no definition or understanding of spiritual life.

To me Life is a self contained system of molecules that is capable of duplicating itself from generation to generation. Put in another way it is organic molecules with the potential of forming self reproducing systems. The basic unit of life is The DNA. If you agree with me on the definition of life, we can then move on to its origin, if not then our thought pattern will never cross.

Nucleic acids are the building blocks of life, as they are responsible for life's primary function - replication and growth. Nucleic acids and protein are polymers. Polymerization involves the loss of water. In constructing a nuceic acid, the phosphorous group losses -OH, allowing the phosphate group to link with ribose sugar. The ribose sugar and a base link when the ribose loses an -OH and the base loses one -H. The loss of these two water molecules leads to the formation of a nucleotide. A nucleotide links to the next nucleotide when it loses one -H and the other one loses one -OH. To make nucleic acids out of the original dehydration(loss of water ) is necessary.dehydration is also necessary to polymerize amino acids into proteins. Polymerization of carbohydrates also requires dehydration.

The original components (phospate group, ribose deoxyribose sugars, bases, amino acids, glocose, etc) are readily formed by by action of electrical charges meaning lightening  and ultraviolet radiation in the primitive atmosphere of the earth (see Miller's experiment). These compounds are readily dissolved in rainwater and brought down to the primitive ocean. There these compounds are protected from destruction from the same agents (electrical discharges and ultraviolet radiation) that created them. As the ocean accumulated these compounds, it slowly became a dilute "primordial soup" The dehydration process needed for polymerization most likely took place on the beaches and in tidal pools of the ancient ocean.

Experiments have shown that RNA is autocatalytic, which means that an RNA stand once formed by accidental dehydration can catalyze the formation of complimentary RNA chain. Short stands of RNA were probably the first self duplicating systems to come into being on the young earth.

In those viruses that use RNA as genetic material, the RNA strand is protected by a sheath of specific proteins. the association of RNA with proteins may have led to protein synthesis, and eventually to Primordial Life.

Mr Davidylan and co might argue that life could not have evolved on earth because the earth was too young. According to them 4.6 billion years is too short a time to make all the various type of proteins and nucleic acids needed to make even the simplest bacteria. But they forget the extreme power of natural environmental selection. Evolution was also operating at the molecular level: compounds that were not stable would not survive, leaving only the most stable compounds. It happens that nucleic acids are very stable compounds.

Let me give you an example how natural selection works. Imagine you want the entire King James Bible types by a wild monkey. What are the chances that such a monkey, typing at random will come up with the bible neatly typed without any error. The king James bible is said to contain about 6 million letter. The chances of success is almost nil. But if i introduce a control (the environment) what deletes any wrong letter the monkey would type, the probability would certainly be 1.  And typing at one letter per second and assuming an average of 13 errors per letter, the monkey would produce the English Bible in 13 X 6,000,000 seconds, which equals 2 yrs and 6 months. That is how evolution by natural selection works.

i hope you people understand the origin of life and Evolution better now as i am exhausted.

huxley:

Yes, the human race is largely ignorant as to the naturalistic origin of life, but that is not to say that we shall for ever remain ignorant.  Secondly, the fact that we have no explanation for something or an event does not preclude making further useful prediction/theories about that something

wirinet:

I decided to respond to this thread again because i felt that you cannot squeeze water from a stone no matter how long and hard you try, that is referring to davidylan and co. You can explain evolution to them a thousand times and they would still say you have not answered a single question there are raising.

But i am responding now because of the above statement by huxley whom i respect very much, and a few others. Scientist have very good and sound postulations about the origin of live on earth and the process being repeated on other planets. It had been dealt with extensively by my mentor - Carl Sagan. But for those who do not know here is my explanation.

Before I explain the naturalistic origin of life as generally accepted by scientists, we have to agree on the definition of life. So What Is Life?

I think the problem we have is that different people has a different definition of life. We have spiritual life, biological life, physical life, and so on. The one we are interested in is biological or organic life. I have no definition or understanding of spiritual life.

To me Life is a self contained system of molecules that is capable of duplicating itself from generation to generation. Put in another way it is organic molecules with the potential of forming self reproducing systems. The basic unit of life is The DNA. If you agree with me on the definition of life, we can then move on to its origin, if not then our thought pattern will never cross.

Nucleic acids are the building blocks of life, as they are responsible for life's primary function - replication and growth. Nucleic acids and protein are polymers. Polymerization involves the loss of water. In constructing a nuceic acid, the phosphorous group losses -OH, allowing the phosphate group to link with ribose sugar. The ribose sugar and a base link when the ribose loses an -OH and the base loses one -H. The loss of these two water molecules leads to the formation of a nucleotide. A nucleotide links to the next nucleotide when it loses one -H and the other one loses one -OH. To make nucleic acids out of the original dehydration(loss of water ) is necessary.dehydration is also necessary to polymerize amino acids into proteins. Polymerization of carbohydrates also requires dehydration.

The original components (phospate group, ribose deoxyribose sugars, bases, amino acids, glocose, etc) are readily formed by by action of electrical charges meaning lightening and ultraviolet radiation in the primitive atmosphere of the earth (see Miller's experiment). These compounds are readily dissolved in rainwater and brought down to the primitive ocean. There these compounds are protected from destruction from the same agents (electrical discharges and ultraviolet radiation) that created them. As the ocean accumulated these compounds, it slowly became a dilute "primordial soup" The dehydration process needed for polymerization most likely took place on the beaches and in tidal pools of the ancient ocean.

Experiments have shown that RNA is autocatalytic, which means that an RNA stand once formed by accidental dehydration can catalyze the formation of complimentary RNA chain. Short stands of RNA were probably the first self duplicating systems to come into being on the young earth.

In those viruses that use RNA as genetic material, the RNA strand is protected by a sheath of specific proteins. the association of RNA with proteins may have led to protein synthesis, and eventually to Primordial Life.

Mr Davidylan and co might argue that life could not have evolved on earth because the earth was too young. According to them 4.6 billion years is too short a time to make all the various type of proteins and nucleic acids needed to make even the simplest bacteria. But they forget the extreme power of natural environmental selection. Evolution was also operating at the molecular level: compounds that were not stable would not survive, leaving only the most stable compounds. It happens that nucleic acids are very stable compounds.

Let me give you an example how natural selection works. Imagine you want the entire King James Bible types by a wild monkey. What are the chances that such a monkey, typing at random will come up with the bible neatly typed without any error. The king James bible is said to contain about 6 million letter. The chances of success is almost nil. But if i introduce a control (the environment) what deletes any wrong letter the monkey would type, the probability would certainly be 1. And typing at one letter per second and assuming an average of 13 errors per letter, the monkey would produce the English Bible in 13 X 6,000,000 seconds, which equals 2 yrs and 6 months. That is how evolution by natural selection works.

i hope you people understand the origin of life and Evolution better now as i am exhausted.

huxley:

What is this thing called EVOLUTION that you are so opposed to and criticizing, but you seem not to know what you are criticising? Don't you think it makes sense that you should first of all learn the claims of evolution before venturing to criticise it? How can you criticise something that you don't understand.

Your strategy is commonly called "Shooting the strawman". It means you carricature or misrepresent a view so that you can more easily shoot it down.


Are your opposition to evolution the result of scientific skepticism or from religious principles. If they are scientific, can you present the scientific data/evidence that renders evolution untenable?

Once again I ask the following questions:

1) What is The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as espoused by the biological scientific community? I want you to define what these biological scientists mean by TTE as originally advanced by Charles Darwin, providing significant reference material from recognised and leading scientific books, publications and experts.

2) What is the Theory/Law of Gravitational Attraction as defined by the scientific community? If you did not know much about the theory of gravity, where would you turn to for information about it?

noetic:

is this ur way of saying thank you for correcting ur rubbish and unintelligent posers about Genesis account of creationism?.

by asking simple cogent questions, we will collectively come to the overall conclusion of the untenability of the evolution lie.
And once again i ask u, how does me answering ur posers elucidate on either the theory of evolution or the creation belief.
I refuse to be distracted.

PS: I have educated ur concerns on the Genesis account of creation, why dont u do the same on the origin and evolution of life.
by doing that we might make progress here.

huxley:

Forget about Genesis and try and answer simply questions rather deploying evasive tactics.

How could you possibly criticise something that you do not understand? What are your scientific criticism for evolution? To be able to criticise it you need to at least demonstrate an understanding of what is the target of your criticism. Just checking - have you ever been to any establishment to learning - like a school, college, university? Did you pay attention to lessons while there? Or are you a product of one of the myriads of bible colleges in Nigeria?

Badriyyah:

Ummmm, I have a problem here. Why are you using the Bible as evidence?

KAG:

1 "Possibly some type of class (or even classes) of protobiont preceded prokaryotes. As for the second question you may need to be clearer to prevent misunderstanding. I'll answer it as best as I interpret it. If you mean to ask where the chemicals that could have played a part in the origin of life originate, then it's likely that some were formed with the formation of the earth, while others[b] may have been [/b] caused or brought by extraterrestrial bodies (by extraterrestrial, I don't mean space monsters, I mean things like rocks that become meteorites, etc)."

KAG:

2"There are many examples of fossilised remains of intermediate life forms, or transitional animals. However, the relative rarity in fossilisation means that obviously not every type of changes between species will be represented in the fossil record. Having said that, there are enough fossils to get a good idea of several changes that have happened between species, genuses, etc.

KAG:

As far as examples go, one of the ones I'm fond of giving is that there are several dinosaur-bird transitionals, with archeopteryx being perhaps the best known."

KAG:

However, I can go further on the first question. First, one should realise that it s likely that it wasn't just life that was necessary for evolution, but lifeforms, as evolution occurs in populations. Now, as to the origins of the first lifeforms, there exist only different hypotheses that propose, in some cases, tangible ways life may have arisen. The RNA world hypthesis is probably the most well known.

KAG:

Lol. I'll just wait for you to insult yourself.

davidylan:

You just like to shout anyhow . . . pls see below:

Fossilised shrimp show earliest group behaviour

The conga was the world's first dance, it seems. A newly discovered caravan of crustaceans from half a billion years ago shows that group behaviour evolved not long after animals themselves.

Palaeontologists led by Hou Xian-Guang, of Yunnan University, China, discovered fossilised chains of up to 20 crustaceans linked head-to-toe, the earliest record of any collective animal behaviour and perhaps an adaptation to a migratory ocean lifestyle.

"It's showing that, 525 million years ago, we've got really quite sophisticated and potentially complex interaction between different animals," says Derek Siveter, of the University of Oxford, who analysed the fossil along with colleagues at the University of Leicester, UK.

and oh note how the SCIENTISTS (you know those gods you look up to) talk about "sophisticated and complex interactions" between mere crustaceans 525 million yrs ago . . . when they were supposed to have been evolving no? Do we need more evidence that these collection of deluded folks dont really know what they are talking about? Huxley, trying telling the paleontologists in china that they are lying . . .

huxley:

I have great doubts that this work is credible and would much appreciate it if you would throw more light on their methods, because if their data is correct, it could potentially overturn some of the bedrock of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

davidylan:

Dude, you cant simply disagree with science when it suits you . . . you have NEVER provided valid scientific papers to back up your own wishy washy claims, prefering to give us youtube.com instead.

That article was published in Science AAAS with an impact factor of 30.927, 1 clear point better than Nature. I'm sure you know it takes more than 1 yr and up to 3 levels of independent peer review to get your paper accepted for publication in Nature alone. If they had problems with the date it would not have been published.

Dude keep quiet when ur ignorance is corrected.

DOI: 10.1126/science.1162794

huxley:

Thanks for that again. I think we are getting somewhere now.  So you agree that this is a very scientifically credible work and the dates of 525 MYA is very plausible?  It that were not the case it would have been challenge by the peer-review process.

Now, 525 MYA ago happen to fall right in the middle of the cambrian period, which spans 543MYA - 495MYA, and you agree with the scientist of your reference article that crustaceans roamed the earth then.

What other animals roamed the earth alongside the crustaceans?   Why have human, rabbits, elephants, dogs fossils NEVER been found in rocks dating this period, circa 525 MYA?   Why do they only appear in much later rock strata?

Can you show me scientific articles, peer-reviewed as the one you cited, that show these mammals to have existed in the cambrian?

davidylan:

Dude, you cant simply disagree with science when it suits you . . . you have NEVER provided valid scientific papers to back up your own wishy washy claims, prefering to give us youtube.com instead.

1. That article was published in Science AAAS with an impact factor of 30.927, 1 clear point better than Nature. I'm sure you know it takes more than 1 yr and up to 3 levels of independent peer review to get your paper accepted for publication in Nature alone. If they had problems with the date it would not have been published.

2. Only one of 4 of the researchers was Chinese, the other 3 were British.

Dude keep quiet when ur ignorance is corrected.

DOI: 10.1126/science.1162794

huxley:



The above response need to be noted by ALL and saved and immortalised for posterity, as it displays Davidylan in his dishonest duplicity about the scientific process.



Firstly it shows him agreeing with a very old earth view of the world, and secondly it shows him displaying confidence in the scientific reseach, peer-review, publications process.

Note - I predict that it will NOT be long before he tries to detract or withdraw his overall approval of these processes and their result. Just keep watching this space.

davidylan:

noetic, on a sidenote i suggest you ignore Baddriyah. I think she's simply looking for attention.
I'd wager you also ignore wirinet, he hasnt read a biology textbook in 25 yrs yet he is here bleating about what he doesnt know about.

davidylan:

dude, your own duplicity makes me sick. You who swears by the gods of science DID NOT know that there were crustaceans during the cambrian period . . . infact you labelled me dishonest and fraudulent for even suggesting what had already been published since the summer of 2008.

You're merely trying to mitigate the disaster that your own ignorance has exposed you to. I dont disaprove of science in general if not i wont be in the field at all. What i find despicable is the fact that many of you clueless bufoons who cant EVEN READ THAT SCIENCE instead prefering to rummage through youtube links stay here bellowing hot air.

Science is not flawless . . . but slowly it is begining to prove wrong the very pillars that you hold unto.

davidylan:

I'm glad you're begining to realise that EVEN SCIENCE is casting major doubts on the lies that TTE is gradually turning out to be. And this was the same ignorant fool accusing me of being dishonest . . . take your time to read the VERY SCIENCE you worship and tout before posting here next time.

lol shrimps have "not not not" been around for 400 million yrs indeed! The clueless ones like wirinet would simply have lapped up his false claim, assuming because he posts tons of youtube links he must know what he is saying.

davidylan:

noetic, on a sidenote i suggest you ignore Baddriyah. I think she's simply looking for attention.
I'd wager you also ignore wirinet, he hasnt read a biology textbook in 25 yrs yet he is here bleating about what he doesnt know about.

wirinet:

I think you are suffering from youthful exorbitance

wirinet:

as you probably only started learning science and you suddenly feel you can challenge almost all establish scientist dating back 3 centuries, especially in the field of paleontology, microbiology and genetics.

wirinet:

When i said I have not read Biology since secondary school, I meant general biology, I did not tell you i do not read aspects that is of concern to me. i have studied everything that has to do with evolution, from astronomy to anthropology, from physics to geology, etc.

wirinet:

I made the statement because i was not sure that scientist had agreed that cancer is hereditary

wirinet:

i know the last time i read about it, there were sharp disagreements among scientist as to the degree hereditary plays in cancer and the degree environmental factors plays.

wirinet:

That was why i asked you for links or sources. I have read your answer and i will research the veracity when i have time.

wirinet:

I have been on nairaland for a while and i never talk of what i do not understand

wirinet:

i will tell you as far as i understand any topic. I never google or cut and past. You can try all my post on all the search engines, you will find my arguments in any website because i write from my head.

wirinet:

You asked a simple question of the origin of life, I answered the way the scientific community understands it, and instead of discussing the merits of my arguments, you simply ran away by saying i do not understand what i am talking about.

wirinet:

If beats me how an educated person can compare a few line of conjecture from the bible, to the myriads of materials detailing the formation and evolution of life by numerous men who devoted their whole life to deciphering the mysteries of life. And someone will tell us that the few assertion of the Bible is more reasonable and sensible than science. That is the first time i am hearing such. Theist usually tell us that the Bible is accepted on faith and not on logic.

Badriyyah:

The question was not directed at you. And what attention would I hope to get on a FORUM? Tsk Tsk David.

wirinet:


Do you have to tell deliberate lies to support your myth. please read my post. I had never posted a youtude link in my life. In fact i have never visited the youtube website. I even avoid youtube links because my server is extremely slow, and i will take too long to open. \so please stop telling lies, it will land you in hell.

davidylan:

which is why i specifically was speaking to noetic not you.

huxley:

Has my catching you so easily rile you?   Do you now have to resort to insult instead of making arguments withs facts and data?  I know this was gonna happen?

huxley:

This is not a debate about who knows more than whom,  but a debate about getting to the truth about the reality concerning the diversity of life on the planet.   Nobody can claim to know everything there is to know about a given subject.  Even experts who work on their select field daily can never claim to know everything about their subject.   Least of all me, you is not an expert, but an interested layperson.  If I do not know a fact and its relation to the grand scheme of things, chances are good that I may know where and how to inform myself about that fact - I go to the learned sources, the experts, the likes of the scientific journals, books, etc, etc, to inform myself.   I do not come here to parade knowledge or ignorance - I come so that we can together try to arrive at credible knowledge.  So it does not bother me in the least if you  call me ignorant.  In fact, if you point at my ignorance of a fact, I am generally quite happy because it give me the opportunity to go bone up of the knowledge concerning that fact.  

davidylan:

which is why i specifically was speaking to noetic not you.

Read that post of mine you quote - where did i say you posted from youtube or even viewed it? Get some common sense.