alexis007:
...who said anything about 'killing'?.....don't be silly...[In Hitler's/Pope Innocent's voice]...It's better known as CLEANSING...PURGE can also make a good synonym...

same as BH mentality

podosci:

The Bible talked about the creation of the earth and the heavens in seven days?......first of all what does it refer to as heavens?......infact lemme not even start,,,The bible contradicts every aspect of the modern world

Contradicts modern world? Dude - what are you talking about?

Blakjewelry:

were in the bible was it stated that Charles Darwin is wrong?

Simple - The Bible claims each animal is unique and originates from it's own KIND i.e. a frog can only give off-spring to a frog and say not a fish. Darwin suggests that all species and animals originates from a single cell organism i.e. a frog came from say an amoeba.

Peterken05

alexis, i understand you, the way you're feeling, you feel that accepting evolution changes everything about your belief, you 're not wrong.

Not at all. I am saying evolution requires a heck more blind faith and belief. How is it you believe that all life came from a single cell organism when it can't be proven?

Now this is it, stop calling evolution a belief system, fake or fallible stories, it is a scientific theory that has be proven (which took over 200 years). You guys dont seem to have problem with other theories like gravitation, germ theory simply because it doesnt threaten your beliefs though it took a while before you accept that too even in the process killing some scientists. This explains why we dont have some gravitationalist who believe in gravitation.

Stop contradicting yourself. The law of gravitation is not a THEORY - IT'S A PROVEN SCIENTIFIC LAW. The law of Bio-Genesis which state that life begats life is a SCIENTIFIC LAW and not a THEORY. Theists don't have any issue with proven science. There are genius scientist that believe in God and that doesn't affect their science. The issue here is that evolution is a theory that you can't prove in a science lab. If I ask you for an example how humans originated from say a fish; you can't provide any concrete evidence - you will tell me that we share 96% DNA gene with Chimps - can a human and chimp mate and produce an off-spring? Never!. It takes a lot of faith to say we came from a fish without evidence - that is why evolution is a theory and requires faith.

Biologist and others have acheived alot through evolution, we can now answer many questions we cant before, we can now trace many diseases back as thousands years back. So many.

Listen, you need to define which evolution you are talking about. Evolution includes and encompasses so many areas. So, please define the evolution you are referring to so we can debate on a specific topic.

Einstein was a physicist, he wasnt a biologist, why would he not separate himself. In science, we dont display ignorance like in any other field, watch scientific debates and you'd know what i'm saying. A neuroscientist wont pretend to know more about the cosmos than an astrophysicist, it doesnt work like that.

Bros, you watch too much TV and don't investigate matters yourself. You have common sense, try and use it. I don't have to be a physicist to know that the law of gravity is a scientific law, nor do I have to be a cosmologist to know that the universe is constantly expanding and that it had a beginning. I don't have to be a biologist to know that the law of bio-genesis is true in all cases.

This is example of what religion can do to you my brother, yes, it shuts your reasoning. Yes, it makes you satisfies with illogical answers and many more.

That is simply not true. My belief in God doesn't stop me from being a scientist.

alexis:

Not at all. I am saying evolution requires a heck more blind faith and belief. How is it you believe that all life came from a single cell organism when it can't be proven?

I cringe whenever I read foolish statements like this, and that is not an ad-hominem attack!
Evolution is a scientific theory with strong and independent evidences alluding to its veracity, so please stop saying evolution is blind faith if you're not able to bring forth any scientific argument against it. Doing so merely makes an unflattering mockery of your intelligence (or lack thereof).

Stop contradicting yourself. The law of gravitation is not a THEORY - IT'S A PROVEN SCIENTIFIC LAW. The law of Bio-Genesis which state that life begats life is a SCIENTIFIC LAW and not a THEORY. Theists don't have any issue with proven science. There are genius scientist that believe in God and that doesn't affect their science.

This is another example of your celebration of ignorance! There's Isaac Newton's "law of universal gravitation", and there's Albert Einstein's gravitational theory; it's called "the theory of general relativity". We also have electromagnetic theory, which drives everything from your microwave ovens to your mobile phones, your lighting needs, access to internet, space missions, etc. The relationship between laws and theories in science is such that laws state 'what is', usually by means of mathematical formalisms, whereas theories attempt to explain the laws. So, by their very nature, the explanatory power of theories make them hierarchically superior to laws. The more a scientific theory confirms established laws, the more compelling it is. For all intents and purposes then, a scientific theory is therefore a falsifiable piece of explanation that has not been falsified, and to which all facts/laws point. Ergo, in order for science to discard a theory, it must be debunked using scientific methods, not boring clichéd rhetoric.

The issue here is that evolution is a theory that you can't prove in a science lab.

You're wrong again. You can prove it in a science lab! Here

If I ask you for an example how humans originated from say a fish; you can't provide any concrete evidence - you will tell me that we share 96% DNA gene with Chimps - can a human and chimp mate and produce an off-spring? Never!. It takes a lot of faith to say we came from a fish without evidence - that is why evolution is a theory and requires faith.

Can you provide any concrete evidence that you came from your great-grandparents? That's a stupid question, you see, not any less so than requiring concrete evidence that humans evolved from fish. Nevertheless, there are still remnants of our fish ancestry in us. An example is the gill slits that all human embryos develop at some stage in their development. As a matter of fact, this is true for all members of the chordata phylum, to which all vertebrates belong. Read the Pharyngeal section here.

A human cannot mate with a chimp. This fact is robustly catered for in the theory of evolution, and is consistent with it. Read on speciation. You may pick especial interest in the artificial speciation section, where humans have, from a single species, induced new species of flies and sheep that do not reproduce viable offsprings with their split-off groups.

Listen, you need to define which evolution you are talking about. Evolution includes and encompasses so many areas. So, please define the evolution you are referring to so we can debate on a specific topic.

There's only one kind of evolution, but it is informed by various processes.

That is simply not true. My belief in God doesn't stop me from being a scientist.

In general, no, belief in god does not preclude one from being a brilliant scientist. Isaac Newton is a stellar example.
So far though, all you have done is bore us with your glamorised strain of ignorance; and demonstrated a curious propensity to regurgitate pseudo-intellectual, thought terminating clichés, and it's debilitating.

Yet, if you still wish to claim you're a scientist, then please debunk the theory of evolution using scientific methods. Do this and I assure you of two things: my respect and a Nobel prize in medicine and physiology. Start with the five proofs contained in the link I gave under "Strong and independent evidences".

AgentOfAllah

I cringe whenever I read foolish statements like this, and that is not an ad-hominem attack!
Evolution is a scientific theory with strong and independent evidences alluding to its veracity, so please stop saying evolution is blind faith if you're not able to bring forth any scientific argument against it. Doing so merely makes an unflattering mockery of your intelligence (or lack thereof).

Since idiots insist on being idiots, I will oblige you. Can you prove scientifically by providing evidence i.e. concrete observable, repeatable and experimental evidence to prove say humans originated from fish. Remember, the criteria here is repeatable and observable. For example, I can easily prove the law of gravity; I can replicate it. Please apply the same rules to evolution

This is another example of your celebration of ignorance! There's Isaac Newton's "law of universal gravitation", and there's Albert Einstein's [b]gravitational theory; it's called "the theory of general relativity". We also have electromagnetic theory, which drives everything from your microwave ovens to your mobile phones, your lighting needs, access to internet, space missions, etc. The relationship between laws and theories in science is such that laws state 'what is', usually by means of mathematical formalisms, whereas theories attempt to explain the laws. So, by their very nature, the explanatory power of theories make them hierarchically superior to laws. The more a scientific theory confirms established laws, the more compelling it is. For all intents and purposes then, a scientific theory is therefore a falsifiable piece of explanation that has not been falsified, and to which all facts/laws point. Ergo, in order for science to discard a theory, it must be debunked using scientific methods, not boring clichéd rhetoric.[/b]

To think that your parents spent all that money to send you to school and it's evident that it's of little use. Try and put your two feet on the ground:

1. A scientific law is almost never false or open to changes i.e. law of biogenesis, law of gravity, laws of thermo-dynamics. These laws are applied in our everyday lives and it's evident everywhere
2. Scientific theory are general hypothesis, guess/belief that something is true, not necessarily correct, some people may support it, others not.

Let me give you some examples so you can go do some reading on it before you make yourself look stupi.d online:

1. Miasmatic theory of disease: This theory holds that diseases such as cholera, chlamydia or the Black Death were caused by a miasma (ancient Greek: “pollution”), a noxious form of “bad air”. This concept was not disposed of until the late 1800s, with the rise of the germ theory of disease. Miasma was considered to be a poisonous vapor or mist filled with particles from decomposed matter that caused illnesses. It was identifiable by its foul smell.

2. Luminiferous aether: Assumed to exist for much of the 19th century, the theory held that a “medium” of aether pervaded the universe through which light could propagate. The celebrated Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 was the first to provide hard evidence that aether did not exist, and the theory lost all popularity among scientists by the 1920's
3. Stress theory of ulcers: As peptic ulcers became more common in the 20th century, doctors increasingly linked them to the stress of modern life. Medical advice during the latter half of the 20th century was, essentially, for patients to take antacids and modify their lifestyle. In the 1980s Australian clinical researcher Barry Marshal discovered that the bacterium H. pylori caused peptic ulcer disease, leading him to win a Nobel Prize in 2005
4. Immovable continents: Prior to the middle of the 20th century scientists believed the Earth’s continents were stable and did not move. This began to change in 1912 with Alfred Wegener’s formulation of the continental drift theory, and later and more properly the elucidation of plate tectonics during the 1950s and 1960s.
5. Static universe: Prior to the observations made by astronomer Edwin Hubble during 1920s, scientists believed the universe was static, neither expanding nor contracting. Hubble found that distant objects in the universe were moving more quickly away than nearby ones. Very recently, in 1999, scientists unexpectedly found that not only was the universe expanding, but its expansion was accelerating

These are just some scientific theories that turned out to be completely in-accurate and wrong. Even Albert Einstein inserted an arbitrary constant regarding the origin of the universe until he encountered Hubble and he corrected his theory. So please, I take God beg you - try and use your common sense before you start posting rubbis.h online

You're wrong again. You can prove it in a science lab! Here

Cha - how stupi.d and gullible are you. Did the fox change and became a lion, did the bacteria changed and became a virus? The evolution that Darwin talked about was evolution in change of KIND - macro evolution i.e. from one KIND to another KIND. The article you posted above didn't mention that; it talked about adaptation and creation of different specie but of the same KIND - micro evolution; I don't doubt micro evolution. For example, having a German spherpard dog cross-breed with a husky gives rise to a new specie of the SAME KIND of animal and NEVER OF ANOTHER KIND.

Can you provide any concrete evidence that you came from your great-grandparents? That's a stupid question, you see, not any less so than requiring concrete evidence that humans evolved from fish.

Yes I can, but your question is a historic legal one and not a scientific one. I can prove on my birth certificate that I am an off-spring of cosummation between my mother and dad and both my parents can do the same. Heck - we can even trace it via DNA if you want scientific proof. So, it's scientifically possible for me to prove that I an of the SAME KIND from my grand parents.

Nevertheless, there are still remnants of our fish ancestry in us. An example is the gill slits that all human embryos develop at some stage in their development. As a matter of fact, this is true for all members of the chordata phylum, to which all vertebrates belong. Read the Pharyngeal section here.

That is why I state that evolution requires belief and blind faith. You are posting a link that is based entirely on belief with no scientific proof whatsoever - you are assuming we share a common ancestry with fish because someone "thinks" so. All I have asked is for proof: Can you replicate the above in a scientific lab to prove your statement? I will answer that for you - NO YOU CAN'T because it's not scientific. It's a theory, I am not denying that but it has no scientific backing; if it does - my challenge is simple:

1. So me step by step lineage of how we came from a fish that I can observe, document, experiment myself. If you can't, then please concede that it's not scientific.

A human cannot mate with a chimp. This fact is robustly catered for in the theory of evolution, and is consistent with it. Read on speciation. You may pick especial interest in the artificial speciation section, where humans have, from a single species, induced new species of flies and sheep that do not reproduce viable offsprings with their split-off groups.

So, I am to follow wikipedia as your evidence of scientific proof - Bros, I can log into wikipedia, edit it as well an anyone can. A human can mate with a chimp but it will never produce an off-spring because we ARE NOT OF THE SAME KIND. Just the same way, we didn't come from a FISH because we are not of the same KIND. Induces other animals of the same specie are all within the same KIND. Humans can't cross a fish with a croc and produce a new KIND of animal - that is what Darwin stated.

There's only one kind of evolution, but it is informed by various processes.

You need to spend more time reading:

1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang
2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.
4. Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.
5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.
6. Micro-Evolution: The variation within kinds of species.

We are discussing the 5th issue and that is where you have so far displayed your ignorance. I asked you for observable, repeatable and reproducible examples and so far so have given me wikipedia as proof

- Of the above supposed 6 types of Evolution, only the last one, Micro-Evolution, has ever been observed.
- The other 5 types of Evolution are part of the Theory of Evolution.
- The other 5 types of Evolution are all theoretical, and have never been observed.
- They cannot be reproduced in a laboratory, and do not therefore fall under the strict definition of a science.
- They are in fact a belief system, taught in countless schools and universities in the world.
- Sadly they are taught as fact, even though the factual content of the Theory of Evolution cannot be proved or disproved, since nobody was present, and these beliefs cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.

In general, no, belief in god does not preclude one from being a brilliant scientist. Isaac Newton is a stellar example.
So far though, all you have done is bore us with your glamorised strain of ignorance; and demonstrated a curious propensity to regurgitate pseudo-intellectual, thought terminating clichés, and it's debilitating.

Coming from a man so said the producing a SILVER fox from another fox is a sign of macro evolution . I rest my case.

Yet, if you still wish to claim you're a scientist, then please debunk the theory of evolution using scientific methods. Do this and I assure you of two things: my respect and a Nobel prize in medicine and physiology. Start with the five proofs contained in the link I gave under "Strong and independent evidences".

You are the one that claimed we came from a fish - I asked you for proof and you said I should prove I came from my grand-parents. I employ you to take your studies more objectively and don't display your ignorance online. So, I am still waiting for a clear scientific proof of macro-evolution.

Alexis, your ardour and zeal are truly misplaced. I won't really say you're not wise or anything because I can see the upturned wisdom in your words.

You ask how all life could have come from a single cell and that we should give proof. Well, no proof needs be given.

The human body as you see it originates from a single cell. Then the cell starts dividing and the cells start arranging and rearranging themselves in a particular manner. Talking about the organs in the body, they originate from stem cells. There are stem cells called totipotential stem cells. These cells divide further to give other cells. All the organs you see in the human body arise from a single cell which keeps dividing and specialising and differentiating and following different organ lines. So stop asking how animal life could have started from a single cell. You believe in God's miracles, you believe that a donkey talked and that the Red Sea was divided and that River Jordan stopped flowing yet you don't believe that life could have arisen from a single cell.

I'm not good in philosophical arguments. But I've just shown you that the object of your doubt happens in the human body and likewise in other living things.

And don't forget, the 3 questions I asked you earlier are still hanging unanswered.

alexis:
Since idiots insist on being idiots, I will oblige you. Can you prove scientifically by providing evidence i.e. concrete observable, repeatable and experimental evidence to prove say humans originated from fish. Remember, the criteria here is repeatable and observable. For example, I can easily prove the law of gravity; I can replicate it. Please apply the same rules to evolution

Is there scientific evidence linking man and fish? Yes! This evidence is deeply rooted in genetic, anatomic and morphological data, and such evidences are acquired independent from each other, yet, they converge. Furthermore, they are observable and repeatable; and as concrete as the DNA evidence linking you to your great-grandparents. If, however, you can show me a repeatable and observable evidence that you came from your great-grandparents that has nothing to do with your genes, anatomy and morphology; then I just might find another kind of repeatable and observable evidence for you. If you choose to ignore the things linking us to fish and all other living organisms, then you'll have to ask your god why it has chosen to confuse us with these things, some of them, unnecessary remnants from our evolutionary past.

To think that your parents spent all that money to send you to school and it's evident that it's of little use. Try and put your two feet on the ground:

1. A scientific law is almost never false or open to changes i.e. law of biogenesis, law of gravity, laws of thermo-dynamics. These laws are applied in our everyday lives and it's evident everywhere
2. Scientific theory are general hypothesis, guess/belief that something is true, not necessarily correct, some people may support it, others not.

Let me give you some examples so you can go do some reading on it before you make yourself look stupi.d online:

1. Miasmatic theory of disease: This theory holds that diseases such as cholera, chlamydia or the Black Death were caused by a miasma (ancient Greek: “pollution”), a noxious form of “bad air”. This concept was not disposed of until the late 1800s, with the rise of the germ theory of disease. Miasma was considered to be a poisonous vapor or mist filled with particles from decomposed matter that caused illnesses. It was identifiable by its foul smell.

2. Luminiferous aether: Assumed to exist for much of the 19th century, the theory held that a “medium” of aether pervaded the universe through which light could propagate. The celebrated Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 was the first to provide hard evidence that aether did not exist, and the theory lost all popularity among scientists by the 1920's
3. Stress theory of ulcers: As peptic ulcers became more common in the 20th century, doctors increasingly linked them to the stress of modern life. Medical advice during the latter half of the 20th century was, essentially, for patients to take antacids and modify their lifestyle. In the 1980s Australian clinical researcher Barry Marshal discovered that the bacterium H. pylori caused peptic ulcer disease, leading him to win a Nobel Prize in 2005
4. Immovable continents: Prior to the middle of the 20th century scientists believed the Earth’s continents were stable and did not move. This began to change in 1912 with Alfred Wegener’s formulation of the continental drift theory, and later and more properly the elucidation of plate tectonics during the 1950s and 1960s.
5. Static universe: Prior to the observations made by astronomer Edwin Hubble during 1920s, scientists believed the universe was static, neither expanding nor contracting. Hubble found that distant objects in the universe were moving more quickly away than nearby ones. Very recently, in 1999, scientists unexpectedly found that not only was the universe expanding, but its expansion was accelerating

These are just some scientific theories that turned out to be completely in-accurate and wrong. Even Albert Einstein inserted an arbitrary constant regarding the origin of the universe until he encountered Hubble and he corrected his theory. So please, I take God beg you - try and use your common sense before you start posting rubbis.h online

I don't understand you. You try to prove a point by using arguments that do the exact opposite? Nothing you've said up there negates what I previously said about scientific laws and theories. Laws are factual observations that are codified into mathematical formalisms, whereas scientific theories are explanations for such laws. Scientific theories start out as hypotheses, and they are tested against these facts called laws. For any hypothesis to become a scientific theory, it must confirm the facts, hence, such a hypothesis must be falsifiable. But scientific theories (not hypotheses) are hierarchically superior to scientific laws because they have broader implications than laws (which have more limited boundary conditions). I think your problem is that you're conflating the colloquial usage of the word "theory" with "scientific theory". Theory is colloquially synonymous with hypothesis, but in science, there is a clear distinction between "hypothesis" and "scientific theory".

Consider my totally made up hypothesis for gravity: Gravity happens because there are invisible ninjas who love mathematical symmetry and dislike things floating if they exceed a certain mass, so every time such a thing floats, they act in such an organised and predictable fashion as to bring that thing down to earth.

The above hypothesis is one that does not contradict the law of gravity, and maybe even supports it, yet it can never become a theory because it is NOT falsifiable. No one will take me seriously if I make such a superfluous proposition.

Now, all the theories you mentioned above were falsifiable, and subsequently falsified using SCIENTIFIC METHODS, but before that happened, they were the best fit models for the observable facts which they explained. The theory of evolution is falsifiable, but also currently the best fit model that describes the presence of diverse lifeforms on earth. For you to dismiss it as false, you must show that it is false using scientific methods as I previously requested of you. So far, all biological evidences, including genetics, anatomy, physiology, fossil records and many more, point towards the theory of evolution as an accurate model. But you're free to contest this, just make sure you bring forth your own scientific arguments, not just those oft repeated cliches of yours.

Please don't come here pretending to know anything when you're clearly oblivious of even the most fundamental scientific concepts. You may think you sound intelligent, but you really don't. Your arguments are just very nauseating to read.

Cha - how stupi.d and gullible are you. Did the fox change and became a lion, did the bacteria changed and became a virus? The evolution that Darwin talked about was evolution in change of KIND - macro evolution i.e. from one KIND to another KIND. The article you posted above didn't mention that; it talked about adaptation and creation of different specie but of the same KIND - micro evolution; I don't doubt micro evolution. For example, having a German spherpard dog cross-breed with a husky gives rise to a new specie of the SAME KIND of animal and NEVER OF ANOTHER KIND.

This is the point where you lose any iota of scientific credibility you had left. Seriously, WTF man? The difference between macro and micro evolution is the timescale involved. Both are fundamentally describing the same process. The difference between these two is the same difference you have if you plot a graph on a linear time scale vs plotting it on a logarithmic time scale. Consider my easy example: If you plot a sinusoidal function [y=A*cos(ωt)] on a linear time scale, it has periodic regions of rises and falls. On this linear scale, you will observe that at point ωt=0, y=A, but as ωt tends to 90degs, 'y' drops to zero, then to -A at 180degs and back to 0 at 360 degs. Now, if you take the slope dy/dt, dt being an infinitesimally small change in time at any point on the slope, you'll find that dy is also very small, that you may not observe a large scale change in 'y'. The slope is also periodic. call this the 'MICROevolution' of y. Now, if you convert the 't' axis to log scale (graduating at much larger intervals, by a factor of 10, say). You'll find that the periodicity of 'y' is lost, and is no longer as predictable as on the linear scale. Points on 'y' have changed forms, the whole curve has evolved such that it loses many of the properties of its linear form, and gains many new properties (like cumulative wrinkles due to non periodic slopes), It keeps other properties, like rising and falling slopes, as well as timescale magnitudes. Such a curve is still fundamentally describing a sinusoidal function, yet it bears no resemblance to its linear scale equivalent, only because I changed its timescale of observation from linear to log. Call this 'MACROevolution'. In essence, Macroevolution is the, so called, "snowball effect" of several microevolutional processes which eventually lead to what you call 'KINDS'. All kinds still share many characteristics, and have diverged in others.
Your claim that Darwin meant to suggest that one kind suddenly became another is a travestied mischaracterisation of his theory of evolution, which only exposes your gross lack of competence on the subject matter. I doubt you have read the book. You can download a copy, as it's widely available on the internet. In chapter III of his book, "On the origins of species" (page 61), he most eloquently alluded to microevolution as the driving force for speciation when he said "...Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring". He preceded this argument with the arbitrariness of distinctions between species in chapter II using the argument of "Doubtful species" (page 47), which are species that can neither be classified as one or another because they have features of two or more supposedly distinct species. Although, the modern concept of species was defined by Ernst Myers, who contended that species should be defined as reproductively isolated kinds. For example, while all felines are greatly similar genetically, they are mostly reproductively isolated. Although, we have seen that even this definition is a fine line because lions and tigers can mate and produce offsprings, so, as you can see, there is no clear distinction between species, and all species can be traced to converge on one massive evolutionary tree.

To be honest, the pseudo-education you're proudly brandishing as sensible talk makes this debate with you extremely excruciating. If you want to debate the theory of evolution, I expect minimal knowledge of its postulates from you. When you read the books on evolution, you can come and discuss the individual points. Right now, you're merely resorting to red-herring points which are irrelevant to the topic, like fish becoming humans or foxes becoming lions and you think you're making intelligent points. What you don't know is that these points are as nonsensical to the biologist as they are to you. No biologist makes such frivolous claims. Evolution is not magic, it talks about a convergent point for all species, not a linear transmogrification from one species to another.

I leave you with a food for thought: There are two versions of ignorance, one born out of the lack of knowledge, and the other, from misleading education. It can be said of the latter, that it is the more malignant form because, not only does the ignorant individual not know anything on the subject, they adamantly defend their conviction of ignorance because they tenaciously cling to the presumption that they know.

AgentOfAllah post=27661153
[...:

I leave you with a food for thought: There are two versions of ignorance, one born out of the lack of knowledge, and the other, from misleading education. It can be said of the latter, that it is the more malignant form because, not only does the ignorant individual not know anything on the subject, they adamantly defend their conviction of ignorance because they tenaciously cling to the presumption that they know.

I admire your patience. Everything you say is absolutely correct, but this is like talking to a brick wall. Nothing can seemingly overcome the incredible arrogance of the ignorant when they think they are "refuting" 150 years of intense research and a scientific theory that has never been falsified in the process - without understanding even the most fundamental basics of it all.

Now, at great pains, let me destroy the rest of your garbage talk for the sake of posterity, and so that you don't claim that I avoided them.

alexis:
AgentOfAllah
Yes I can, but your question is a historic legal one and not a scientific one. I can prove on my birth certificate that I am an off-spring of cosummation between my mother and dad and both my parents can do the same. Heck - we can even trace it via DNA if you want scientific proof. So, it's scientifically possible for me to prove that I an of the SAME KIND from my grand parents.

No, I asked for scientific evidence, not historical or legal evidence (these two cannot be subjected to scientific tests). Anyway, you offered me DNA tests. Okay, I'll go with that. So you believe DNA can tell about your shared ancestry with your grand parents, but you don't believe it can tell about our shared ancestry with fish? Now who's being conveniently irrational? I scoff at your stupidity!

That is why I state that evolution requires belief and blind faith. You are posting a link that is based entirely on belief with no scientific proof whatsoever - you are assuming we share a common ancestry with fish because someone "thinks" so. All I have asked is for proof: Can you replicate the above in a scientific lab to prove your statement? I will answer that for you - NO YOU CAN'T because it's not scientific. It's a theory, I am not denying that but it has no scientific backing; if it does - my challenge is simple:

1. So me step by step lineage of how we came from a fish that I can observe, document, experiment myself. If you can't, then please concede that it's not scientific.

Your question is irrelevant because evolution does not claim a linear transmogrification of species as I earlier stated, it rather claims a convergence of all species, which diverged through very subtle and gradual adaptations to different environmental needs. Of course a linear transmogrification is not scientific, and I don't know where I ever stated otherwise. The only reason the theory of evolution rules the world of biology today is because it has ample scientific evidence that supports it. You may continue to repeat that stupid claim that it doesn't, but you cannot change the fact.

So, I am to follow wikipedia as your evidence of scientific proof - Bros, I can log into wikipedia, edit it as well an anyone can. A human can mate with a chimp but it will never produce an off-spring because we ARE NOT OF THE SAME KIND. Just the same way, we didn't come from a FISH because we are not of the same KIND. Induces other animals of the same specie are all within the same KIND. Humans can't cross a fish with a croc and produce a new KIND of animal - that is what Darwin stated.

I don't expect you to accept anything Wikipedia says. However, the claims in the Wikipedia pages I have shared with you have links to peer-reviewed papers publish in reputable scientific journals. I do not intend to bore you with those, but you can always trace them back if you wish to. So don't dismiss it because it's Wikipedia, dismiss it because it is scientifically inaccurate, by showing the inaccuracy in the claim.

Since you have read Darwin's theory, and know everything there is to know about it, kindly show me where Darwin stated humans can cross a fish with a croc to produce a new kind of animal. If you don't, you're a liar!

You need to spend more time reading:

1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang
2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.
4. Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.
5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.
6. Micro-Evolution: The variation within kinds of species.

We are discussing the 5th issue and that is where you have so far displayed your ignorance. I asked you for observable, repeatable and reproducible examples and so far so have given me wikipedia as proof

- Of the above supposed 6 types of Evolution, only the last one, Micro-Evolution, has ever been observed.
- The other 5 types of Evolution are part of the Theory of Evolution.
- The other 5 types of Evolution are all theoretical, and have never been observed.
- They cannot be reproduced in a laboratory, and do not therefore fall under the strict definition of a science.
- They are in fact a belief system, taught in countless schools and universities in the world.
- Sadly they are taught as fact, even though the factual content of the Theory of Evolution cannot be proved or disproved, since nobody was present, and these beliefs cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.

You're rather very ignorant, aren't you? Cosmic evolution, stellar evolution and planetary evolution are part of the 'Theory of Evolution'? Wow!!! Can you even listen to yourself? For once, do yourself a favour and read on the Theory of Evolution. You also claim 'Organic evolution' is about the origin of life. Are you flipping kidding me? You must think this is some kind of joke where you make rubbish up. The Theory of Evolution is The Theory of evolution, and it is one coherent theory that explains biodiversity. It doesn't even explain the origin of life. For that, you'll need to study hypotheses on abiogenesis. The theory proceeds from the fact that life already existed to start with. I would love to take you up on your stu.pid claim that hydrogen being the building block of all other elements has not been proven, but that is a discussion for when you're more educated. Maybe you should read on nuclear fusion and what happens in stars as they burn their amassed hydrogen. SMH...your ignorance knows no bounds!

Coming from a man so said the producing a SILVER fox from another fox is a sign of macro evolution . I rest my case.

Yes, when you find no means to support your ignorant claims, put words in my mouth, and then debunk your imaginary argument. LIAR!

You are the one that claimed we came from a fish - I asked you for proof and you said I should prove I came from my grand-parents. I employ you to take your studies more objectively and don't display your ignorance online. So, I am still waiting for a clear scientific proof of macro-evolution.

We have common ancestry with fishes, and the proof is that we share in the characteristics that unify all member species of the Chordata phylum in the animal kingdom. I earlier mentioned the pharyngeal, but there are countless others, which you can look up yourself. That's as scientific as it gets. If you want me to demonstrate a fish transform into human, then you're asking the wrong person. I am a scientist, not a magician. Take your fairytale questions to your god. Maybe, in the process, you can ask your god why all living things have so many commonalities, that the only conclusion we can make is that we all have a common ancestry. Ask your god why humans have several complex biological characteristics that seem necessary for the survival of other animals but are completely redundant in humans. Was this a diabolic joke?

Liekiller:


I admire your patience. Everything you say is absolutely correct, but this is like talking to a brick wall. Nothing can seemingly overcome the incredible arrogance of the ignorant when they think they are "refuting" 150 years of intense research and a scientific theory that has never been falsified in the process - without understanding even the most fundamental basics of it all.

my guy, agentofallah try well well o. as for me I have given up since.

Liekiller:


I admire your patience. Everything you say is absolutely correct, but this is like talking to a brick wall. Nothing can seemingly overcome the incredible arrogance of the ignorant when they think they are "refuting" 150 years of intense research and a scientific theory that has never been falsified in the process - without understanding even the most fundamental basics of it all.

Thanks. These people are rather very fascinating when you're not on the receiving end of their ignorance. I mean, if you wish to debate against a scientific theory, the least you must do is know about the subject. This individual I'm debating with hasn't even the slightest idea what's in the book, and I can tell because he's too happy to attribute false statements to Darwin, and fabricate complete nonsense, claiming it is part of the theory. Yet he thinks it is fashionable to spew his truckload of ignorance on the world.

Blakjewelry:

my guy, agentofallah try well well o. as for me I have given up since.

So have I. They don't understand biology on primary school level, so how would one have any reasonable discussion with them about a topic that involves rather elaboate genetics etc. to fully understand it?

thanks to agentofallah and blackjewelry for replying alexis, i cant reply using my phone, the post is too ambiguous for that.

I think this alexis is different from the other (ignoramus, dogmatic) alexis007, there must be a mixup.

On scientific law and theory
Scientists do not use the terms that way,

evolution is a scientific theory, so is gravitational theory. The reason
why modern scientists dont use facts or laws nowadays is because
we would always make more findings, more research,

so we cant
say this is it, nothing can debunked this, no that is not science, that
is dogma.
For example, there was gravitational law and then came
the theory of relativity, instead of calling T of relativity a law, theory
is been used now because thats the last step in any science
proposition or findings. Same goes for germ theory of diseases and
the rest. If
you say evolution is under probation, so are all other scientific
theories.


however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific
theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the
natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and
tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory
into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So
when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic
theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not
expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent
with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The
NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly
confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The
fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms
have evolved through time.

Although no one observed those
transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and
compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot
see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their
existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in
cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not
make physicists' conclusions less certain.

Peterken05:
thanks to agentofallah and blackjewelry for replying alexis, i cant reply using my phone, the post is too ambiguous for that.

I think this alexis is different from the other (ignoramus, dogmatic) alexis007, there must be a mixup.

On scientific law and theory
Scientists do not use the terms that way,

evolution is a scientific theory, so is gravitational theory. The reason
why modern scientists dont use facts or laws nowadays is because
we would always make more findings, more research,

so we cant
say this is it, nothing can debunked this, no that is not science, that
is dogma.
For example, there was gravitational law and then came
the theory of relativity, instead of calling T of relativity a law, theory
is been used now because thats the last step in any science
proposition or findings. Same goes for germ theory of diseases and
the rest. If
you say evolution is under probation, so are all other scientific
theories.


however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific
theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the
natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and
tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory
into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So
when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic
theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not
expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent
with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The
NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly
confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The
fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms
have evolved through time.

Although no one observed those
transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and
compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot
see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their
existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in
cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not
make physicists' conclusions less certain.

are you teaching me basic science?i wasn't science-inclined @ school but i knew all these...kindly save me the epistle....still sticking with #TeamEvolutionIsAHoax.......you can't shake my faith with a joke of a theory.....maybe i don't have answers to all your questions....but i'm dead certain about 1 contemporary issue...when Ebola infiltrated Nigeria...it wasn't science that conquered it[Nigeria 4 sure can't boast of the best of health facilities]...yet it eventually was rolled back...now even america looks up to us 4 ways to tackle the deadly virus...one thing i'd never miss is how christains and muslims alike made supplications to God for rescue,and He failed not!!...My brother,if you don't suspect the invisible hand of God in the fashioning of life on earth and the universe in general....You are missing a vital information...PERIOD!

Liekiller:


So have I. They don't understand biology on primary school level, so how would one have any reasonable discussion with them about a topic that involves rather elaboate genetics etc. to fully understand it?

I am a christain,a follower of Christ,the only one who rose from the dead [not coma,mark you]after 3 days...Christanity has lasted for more than 2000 years...can you and folks like you,O ye men with access to hidden truths,explain how a religion wìth 'blind followers' has achieved such longevity?could it be that once one steps in2 a church,a thick spell is cast upon his insight and understanding or what?

alexis:


Simple - The Bible claims each animal is unique and originates from it's own KIND i.e. a frog can only give off-spring to a frog and say not a fish. Darwin suggests that all species and animals originates from a single cell organism i.e. a frog came from say an amoeba.

my brother,kill them all...next thing i'd hear that the rat is a distant ancestor to the cat [sick things you can really hear from an evolutionist] .....and yet both can't stay in the same hood without the smaller animal getting eaten

alexis007:
are you teaching me basic science?i wasn't science-inclined @ school but i knew all these...kindly save me the epistle....still sticking with #TeamEvolutionIsAHoax.......you can't shake my faith with a joke of a theory

You weren't science inclined in school? No wonder! Yet you're trying to dismiss a well established scientific theory. Calling you stu.pid is a benevolent euphemism.

.....maybe i don't have answers to all your questions....but i'm dead certain about 1 contemporary issue...when Ebola infiltrated Nigeria...it wasn't science that conquered [Nigeria 4 sure can't boast of the best of health facilities]...yet it eventually was rolled back...now even america looks up to us 4 ways to tackle the deadly virus...one thing i'd never miss is how christains and muslims alike made supplications to God for rescue,and He failed not!!...My brother,if you don't suspect the invisible hand of God in the fashioning of life on earth and the universe in general....You are missing a vital information...PERIOD!

Now you're not just ignorant. You're also quite crazy too! You insult the doctors and nurses who sacrificed their lives to save Nigeria from a major pandemic with your stupidity.

All those drips, and carefully administered medicines weren't the reasons the survivors survived, it was because Christians and Muslims prayed to god. Answer me these 5 questions:

1) Did you hear of anybody who survived Ebola outside of the hospital?

2) Did you hear of Sis Jartu Kerkulah?
She was a prayer warrior who lost her life to Ebola. Guess how...your god's Ebola curing prowess in action.

3) Why did your god allow an Ebola outbreak in the first place?

4) Why hasn't your god performed his miracles in the other Ebola ravaged countries?

5) If as you claim, it's the grace of god, not science, that stopped Ebola, then what exactly is America expecting to learn from Nigeria? How to invoke the grace of god? Never knew you needed special classes for that!

Please park well jarre!!!

'theory of evolution' can kiss my ass...till some genius scientist would explain how two fishes would mate to produce a human being [no fins,no gills,no natural body temperature that tolerates water as an abode]...and since they lay eggs which hatch their young...i'm thinking about a situation where two tilapia fishes were cooling off after having sex only to see the eggs they lay hatch out Adam [of course that is the world's 1st man]....Oh my G!..Darwins is a terrible Joker!

alexis007:
'theory of evolution' can kiss my ass...till some genius scientist would explain how two fishes would mate to produce a human being [no fins,no gills,no natural body temperature that tolerates water as an abode]...and since they lay eggs which hatch their young...i'm thinking about a situation where two tilapia fishes were cooling off after having sex only to see the eggs they lay hatch out Adam [of course that is the world's 1st man]....Oh my G!..Darwins is a terrible Joker!

SMHFY
You make me want to believe in god, if only to ask it to slap some sense into you. You're hopeless!! Haha

AgentOfAllah

Now, at great pains, let me destroy the rest of your garbage talk for the sake of posterity, and so that you don't claim that I avoided them.

Don't bother Bros - so far you are close to building an alien ship than to proving your reasoning is actually objective.

No, I asked for scientific evidence, not historical or legal evidence (these two cannot be subjected to scientific tests). Anyway, you offered me DNA tests. Okay, I'll go with that. So you believe DNA can tell about your shared ancestry with your grand parents, but you don't believe it can tell about our shared ancestry with fish? Now who's being conveniently irrational? I scoff at your stupidity!

I never said shared ancestry - THAT IS NOT THE CLAIM HERE. Your claim is that we are of the same KIND, there-fore we are related. The proof of my lineage to my grand parents can be tested an replicated. For one:

1. My grand-parents were humans; we shared 100% in every way possible the very same DNA - ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE.
2. Since they were humans, and I am human - if I mate with another human i.e. OF THE SAME KIND - Another human will be born.

Idio.ts like you decide to put your reasoning in the trash-bag when it comes to matters of science. I have repeatedly asked you to provide REPEATABLE, REPLICABLE, OBSERVABLE PROOF that we humans can originate from fish - so far, you have been successful at showing your public stupid.ity than your scientific claims. Your stupi.di.ty is beginning to offend me

Your question is irrelevant because evolution does not claim a linear transmogrification of species as I earlier stated, it rather claims a convergence of all species, which diverged through very subtle and gradual adaptations to different environmental needs.

Stop trying to cover your lies. Macro evolution does claim two similar specie of the same KIND can give rise to a different specie of another KIND. Your claims of "subtle and gradual adaptations to different environmental needs" cannot be proven by science nor can it be proven in a lab. That is why I have stated such claims are beliefs rather than tested science. Your entire premise hinges on claims that you can't prove. I am actually beginning to think you are constipated

Of course a linear transmogrification is not scientific, and I don't know where I ever stated otherwise. The only reason the theory of evolution rules the world of biology today is because it has ample scientific evidence that supports it. You may continue to repeat that stupid claim that it doesn't, but you cannot change the fact.

Evolutionists always do the same thing, you just have to be patient for them to dig their own graves. If you are claiming micro-evolution i.e. species of the same kind produce another specie of the same kind - then you and I shouldn't be having this discussion. However, your claims are that same species of one KIND can give rise to a different specie of a different KIND. This is what Darwinism is all about - all different KINDs of species originated from one single specie which originated from a non-life. Now, you are here twisting your words and saying otherwise.

I don't expect you to accept anything Wikipedia says. However, the claims in the Wikipedia pages I have shared with you have links to peer-reviewed papers publish in reputable scientific journals. I do not intend to bore you with those, but you can always trace them back if you wish to. So don't dismiss it because it's Wikipedia, dismiss it because it is scientifically inaccurate, by showing the inaccuracy in the claim.

I can't respond to a website that anyone can edit and update. You can provide snippets from respected Scientist and universities and I will refer to them and respond accordingly. Scientists don't refer to wikipedia to lay claims. You can attempt to do the same on your thesis in school and wait for the response from your professor.

Since you have read Darwin's theory, and know everything there is to know about it, kindly show me where Darwin stated humans can cross a fish with a croc to produce a new kind of animal. If you don't, you're a liar!

Darwin claim is that we all i.e every single KIND of animal, plant and living thing came from the same ancestor? The dog, cat, croc, elephant, humans, whales, flowers, flies etc were genetically modified "over a long" period of time and that gave rise to complex creatures. If you can prove with facts, conduct scientific repeatable and observable process "what actually happened" "OVER THE LONG PERIOD" of time to. He even went further to say that all living things came from non-life. So, these are his claims (Yours as well)

1. Life came from non-life: I will leave this bone for you to crack later
2. Single & simple life form somehow evolved into trees, bats, cock roaches, moths, sharks, jelly-fish, humans, lions, apes, honey badger etc.
3. Darwin never stated if you crossed a fish with a croc it will produced a new kind of animal literally. He did go further and say, crocs and fishes are products of random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code. He didn't care to explain "HOW IT HAPPENED" with any proof. So, the fish was sitting down and due to some unknown reason, it modified over-time and evolved to be a snake. So on and so forth and here we are humans. THAT IS DARWIN CLAIM

You're rather very ignorant, aren't you? Cosmic evolution, stellar evolution and planetary evolution are part of the 'Theory of Evolution'? Wow!!! Can you even listen to yourself? For once, do yourself a favour and read on the Theory of Evolution. You also claim 'Organic evolution' is about the origin of life. Are you flipping kidding me? You must think this is some kind of joke where you make rubbish up. The Theory of Evolution is The Theory of evolution, and it is one coherent theory that explains biodiversity. It doesn't even explain the origin of life. For that, you'll need to study hypotheses on abiogenesis. The theory proceeds from the fact that life already existed to start with.

Dude - that is simply not true. Darwin claim is that all life came from non life and developed from a simple form to complex forms. Were do they brain-wash you guys? Darwin claimed that life started on earth in a 'warm little pond'. He favored the possibility that life could appear by natural processes from simple inorganic compounds, his reluctance to discuss the issue resulted from his recognition that at the time it was possible to undertake the experimental study of the emergence of life.

Please refer to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745620/. Read his reference on how life started and try and SHUTUP after that

I would love to take you up on your stu.pid claim that hydrogen being the building block of all other elements has not been proven, but that is a discussion for when you're more educated. Maybe you should read on nuclear fusion and what happens in stars as they burn their amassed hydrogen. SMH...your ignorance knows no bounds!

Malu, when did I mention hydrogen? Idiot.s like you don't reason objectively. If you want to debate me on any subject, I will gladly indulge you. All I ask if that you bring some proof with you.

Yes, when you find no means to support your ignorant claims, put words in my mouth, and then debunk your imaginary argument. LIAR!

I said macro-evolution is a theory and can't be proven in a science lab - your response was this link: http://ultraphyte.com/2012/02/21/evolution-in-the-lab/. It was at this point that I stated two species of the same KIND doesn't give rise to a different KIND of animal. Either read the question pretty well or look at yourself in the mirror because you call someone else a LIAR

We have common ancestry with fishes, and the proof is that we share in the characteristics that unify all member species of the Chordata phylum in the animal kingdom.

Stop insisting on being stup.id man. You and I are not related to cock roaches or jelly-fishes - SUCH CLAIMS CAN'T BE PROVEN EVEN IF YOU SAY IT ONE BILLION TIMES. You simply can't prove it scientifically. That is why it's a belief because it can't be proven scientifically. They are ideas of one man that have been amplified.

I earlier mentioned the pharyngeal, but there are countless others, which you can look up yourself. That's as scientific as it gets. If you want me to demonstrate a fish transform into human, then you're asking the wrong person. I am a scientist, not a magician.

The Chordata phylum doesn't prove anything Bros, jelly fishes are not vertebrates yet considered fishes. Then act like a scientist and make it clear that evolution is just what it is - a theory/an assumption that you insist on being the correct answer to life when you can't prove it. All I ask is that you be honest.

Take your fairytale questions to your god. Maybe, in the process, you can ask your god why all living things have so many commonalities, that the only conclusion we can make is that we all have a common ancestry. Ask your god why humans have several complex biological characteristics that seem necessary for the survival of other animals but are completely redundant in humans. Was this a diabolic joke?

Cha - mumuness no good oh. Please read my posts again. I never claimed that we don't share similarities with other animals. My claim is that we are distinct and unique. A human is a human and didn't evolve from a fish. A fish is a fish and didn't evolve from an amoeba. A flower is a flower and didn't evolve from anything else other than a flower. Every living thing in it's class is unique and is not a product of a random accident over time that you can't explain. I advise that you go back to your drawing board and decide to either become a magician or a scientist - you can only be one

Peterken05

I think this alexis is different from the other (ignoramus, dogmatic) alexis007, there must be a mixup.

alexis and alexis007 are two different accounts. This is alecis

On scientific law and theory. Scientists do not use the terms that way, evolution is a scientific theory, so is gravitational theory. The reason why modern scientists dont use facts or laws nowadays is because we would always make more findings, more research, so we cant say this is it, nothing can debunked this, no that is not science, that is dogma.

A theory is just a hypothesis, a possible explanation of an event - it is not analytically. In cases of evolution which is not an experimental science; we can't observe, measure or experiment on such theory. For example, how can we experiment of Darwin's claim that we all including trees originate some a single organism - we can't. So, it's not dogma to say that evolution is just a theory because in actuality; that is what it is.

Now, scientific laws rarely change i.e. law of bio-genesis; laws of thermodynamics; law of gravity: These are factual and analytically explanations with provable and repeatable examples - that is why they become laws. For example, the law of bio-genesis is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material. It has been documented that Darwin supported spontaneous generation which suggests that life came from non-living materials.

For example, there was gravitational law and then came the theory of relativity, instead of calling T of relativity a law, theory is been used now because thats the last step in any science proposition or findings. Same goes for germ theory of diseases and
the rest. If you say evolution is under probation, so are all other scientific theories.

You are mixing things up:

1. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream. We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

The law tells us exactly what we should do to calculate gravity; it's repeatable, observable and we can replicate and experiment. Now, this law doesn't tell us "why" it happens. This is where scientific theory comes in; to provide a hypothesis or explanation of why it happens.

2. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall. It doesn't provide the tools to calculate or measure gravity.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent
with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The
NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly
confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The
fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms
have evolved through time.

Of course organisms evolve; I like to call this adaptation. Bacteria adapts to become ore resistant to certain drugs. However, bacteria don't become viruses. This has always been my stand. To claim that complex life-forms are products of simple life form holds no scientific pedigree.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot
see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their
existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in
cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not
make physicists' conclusions less certain.

True but physics and biological are two different sciences. Remember Albert Einstein claim on the origin of the universe. Initially, he said the universe never had a beginning and as a result, he inserted an arbitrary constant to "prove" this. Later, he was invited by Edwin Hubble who used his new telescopes to confirm that the universe is expanding and an expanding universe had an origin.

I am saying all this to tell show you that; if you can't prove something scientifically, you can't claim that it's TRUE.

alexis007:
I am a christain,a follower of Christ,the only one who rose from the dead [not coma,mark you]after 3 days...Christanity has lasted for more than 2000 years...can you and folks like you,O ye men with access to hidden truths,explain how a religion wìth 'blind followers' has achieved such longevity?could it be that once one steps in2 a church,a thick spell is cast upon his insight and understanding or what?

There seems to be a spell on the understanding of certain individuals who are trying to debate things they know nothing about. I more suspect it's the result of a combination of a totally defunct education system in combination with omnipresent religious brainwashing. more moderate believers have no problem with it, only fanatics do. Our "hidden truths" are by no means hidden. It's all one mouse click away. In more developped countries it is taught from primary school onwards. It's common and fundamental knowledge.

AgentOfAllah

Is there scientific evidence linking man and fish? Yes! This evidence is deeply rooted in genetic, anatomic and morphological data, and such evidences are acquired independent from each other, yet, they converge. Furthermore, they are observable and repeatable; and as concrete as the DNA evidence linking you to your great-grandparents.

We have been over this 1001 times already . You are playing semantics and want to argue just to prove you can argue. My claim is simple - man and fish are different species of different kind of animals; do we share some similarities - yes; I never denied that but we are separate kinds. Man is unique, fish is unique and every kind of animal is unique. So, our similarities doesn't prove our origin.

For example, a dog feel pains, emotions and can even dream. Those are similarities in humans as well. Does that mean the dog and man are of the same kind because we share those similarities? NO!

If, however, you can show me a repeatable and observable evidence that you came from your great-grandparents that has nothing to do with your genes, anatomy and morphology; then I just might find another kind of repeatable and observable evidence for you.If you choose to ignore the things linking us to fish and all other living organisms, then you'll have to ask your god why it has chosen to confuse us with these things, some of them, unnecessary remnants from our evolutionary past.

Cha - stupi.dity on a whole new level. I have addressed this already but to stroke your ego so you can have a mind organism, I will indulge you.

So, because humans get goose bumps as other animals mean we are of the same KIND? Oh boy - your mother should hear this one Dude, your are using the fallacy of division. You have left science and you are jumping to logic. It's like me claiming that if you have 5 kids by your wife; it's possible that I fathered them since it's only a man that can get a woman pregnant. There are only two possibilities - either you are the father or I am . Just the way there are two possibilities; either humans are fishes or fishes are humans. This has nothing to do with similarities. You keep making a fool of yourself.

I don't understand you. You try to prove a point by using arguments that do the exact opposite? Nothing you've said up there negates what I previously said about scientific laws and theories. Laws are factual observations that are codified into mathematical formalisms, whereas scientific theories are explanations for such laws. Scientific theories start out as hypotheses, and they are tested against these facts called laws. For any hypothesis to become a scientific theory, it must confirm the facts, hence, such a hypothesis must be falsifiable. But scientific theories (not hypotheses) are hierarchically superior to scientific laws because they have broader implications than laws (which have more limited boundary conditions). I think your problem is that you're conflating the colloquial usage of the word "theory" with "scientific theory". Theory is colloquially synonymous with hypothesis, but in science, there is a clear distinction between "hypothesis" and "scientific theory

If scientific theories are superior to scientific laws as you claim, can you please answer these questions:

1. Are there any exceptions to a scientific law?
2. Are there any exceptions to a scientific theory?

Your answer will put this matter to rest

Consider my totally made up hypothesis for gravity: Gravity happens because there are invisible ninjas who love mathematical symmetry and dislike things floating if they exceed a certain mass, so every time such a thing floats, they act in such an organised and predictable fashion as to bring that thing down to earth. The above hypothesis is one that does not contradict the law of gravity, and maybe even supports it, yet it can never become a theory because it is NOT falsifiable. No one will take me seriously if I make such a superfluous proposition.

Excellent example and I agree with it.

Now, all the theories you mentioned above were falsifiable, and subsequently falsified using SCIENTIFIC METHODS, but before that happened, they were the best fit models for the observable facts which they explained. The theory of evolution is falsifiable, but also currently the best fit model that describes the presence of diverse lifeforms on earth.

I think this is an honest statement by you and I appreciate it. So far, what I get from you is that most animals have similarities that are common and as a result, we all came from the same place. While there is truth in our similarities, it doesn't prove that we all products of accident over a long period of time

For you to dismiss it as false, you must show that it is false using scientific methods as I previously requested of you. So far, all biological evidences, including genetics, anatomy, physiology, fossil records and many more, point towards the theory of evolution as an accurate model. But you're free to contest this, just make sure you bring forth your own scientific arguments, not just those oft repeated cliches of yours.

I have brought several Bros and you are yet to do justice to them. Your claim is that since we share similarities, we are one and the same. That sounds like a faith based mantra to be as compared to evidence. Let me give you another example. Evolutionist claim that we are 96% the same with chimps i.e. we evolved from chimps - if this is true; can it be repeated?

Please don't come here pretending to know anything when you're clearly oblivious of even the most fundamental scientific concepts. You may think you sound intelligent, but you really don't. Your arguments are just very nauseating to read.

And I honestly think your time is school was a waste as your claims are based "evidences" you can't produce.

This is the point where you lose any iota of scientific credibility you had left. Seriously, WTF man? The difference between macro and micro evolution is the timescale involved. Both are fundamentally describing the same process. The difference between these two is the same difference you have if you plot a graph on a linear time scale vs plotting it on a logarithmic time scale. Consider my easy example: If you plot a sinusoidal function [y=A*cos(ωt)] on a linear time scale, it has periodic regions of rises and falls. On this linear scale, you will observe that at point ωt=0, y=A, but as ωt tends to 90degs, 'y' drops to zero, then to -A at 180degs and back to 0 at 360 degs. Now, if you take the slope dy/dt, dt being an infinitesimally small change in time at any point on the slope, you'll find that dy is also very small, that you may not observe a large scale change in 'y'. The slope is also periodic. call this the 'MICROevolution' of y. Now, if you convert the 't' axis to log scale (graduating at much larger intervals, by a factor of 10, say). You'll find that the periodicity of 'y' is lost, and is no longer as predictable as on the linear scale. Points on 'y' have changed forms, the whole curve has evolved such that it loses many of the properties of its linear form, and gains many new properties (like cumulative wrinkles due to non periodic slopes), It keeps other properties, like rising and falling slopes, as well as timescale magnitudes. Such a curve is still fundamentally describing a sinusoidal function, yet it bears no resemblance to its linear scale equivalent, only because I changed its timescale of observation from linear to log. Call this 'MACROevolution'. In essence, Macroevolution is the, so called, "snowball effect" of several microevolutional processes which eventually lead to what you call 'KINDS'. All kinds still share many characteristics, and have diverged in others.

When people copy and paste from Wikipedia in an online debate, it bores me. I have addressed this statement above, please refer to it. I am getting physically tired responding to the same thing over and over again.

Your claim that Darwin meant to suggest that one kind suddenly became another is a travestied mischaracterisation of his theory of evolution, which only exposes your gross lack of competence on the subject matter. I doubt you have read the book. You can download a copy, as it's widely available on the internet. In chapter III of his book, "On the origins of species" (page 61), he most eloquently alluded to microevolution as the driving force for speciation when he said "...Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring". He preceded this argument with the arbitrariness of distinctions between species in chapter II using the argument of "Doubtful species" (page 47), which are species that can neither be classified as one or another because they have features of two or more supposedly distinct species. Although, the modern concept of species was defined by Ernst Myers, who contended that species should be defined as reproductively isolated kinds. For example, while all felines are greatly similar genetically, they are mostly reproductively isolated. Although, we have seen that even this definition is a fine line because lions and tigers can mate and produce offsprings, so, as you can see, there is no clear distinction between species, and all species can be traced to converge on one massive evolutionary tree.

Man, your ignorance is appalling. I responded to you and said Darwin didn't say when a fish and croc mates it produces another animal - I have already addressed that. Put on your thinking cap, let us get to the genesis on this matter:

When Charles Darwin visited the Galapagos Islands, he discovered something that greatly interested him. He found several different species of finches which were unique to the islands. The basic differences between these species was the size and shape of their beaks. Some of the finches had short thick beaks, used to crack open seeds, while others had long, thin beaks that could be used to catch insects or drink nectar from flowers. As he studied the birds, he came to the conclusion that the finches were very similar and must have been related. In fact, Darwin believed that the species had originally diverged from a single species of birds. He guessed that long before he had arrived on the islands, a storm must have blown this flock of birds to the Galapagos Islands. To give a very simplified version of Darwin’s hypothesis, he thought the birds with long beaks stayed together and ate insects, while the birds with short, stout beaks were able to survive in different places on the islands where they could find seeds. Eventually, due to drought, climate change, and environmental pressures, each group became its own species through the process of natural selection. Darwin also thought that if nature could change one species of finch into several different species, then it could change an amoeba into a man. Here Darwin made a major mistake in his thinking. He did not realize that small changes have limits.

What do the finches really prove? They prove that finches stay finches, and the only documented kind of “evolution” is that of small changes within the same kind of organism. The Grants have been studying the finches for 33 years, and this change in beak size, which amounted to about .6 millimeters in beak length and .8 millimeters in beak depth (“Study: Darwin’s...,” 2006), was “the strongest evolutionary change seen in the 33 years of the study” (Grant and Grant, 2006). Even more ironic is the fact that this “evolutionary” change to a smaller beak that allegedly helped the finches to survive might not be so helpful after all. In the same article for Science, the Grants alluded to research done in 1977 when a drought struck the same island and killed many of the finches. The Grants noted: “Most finches died that year, and mortality was heaviest among those with small beaks” (2006, emp. added). Thus, if G. fortis keeps “evolving” a smaller beak size, a major drought in the future could easily spell the bird’s demise.

Scientific observation has never produced a single shred of evidence that proves even the possibility of “huge genetic changes turning one kind of animal into another.” In fact, all the observable evidence proves that every living organism multiplies “according to its kind” ns and you think you're making intelligent points. What you don't know is that these points are as nonsensical to the biologist as they are to you. No biologist makes such frivolous claims. Evolution is not magic, it talks about a convergent point for all species, not a linear transmogrification from one species to another.

I don't have enough space or time to give you other examples.

To be honest, the pseudo-education you're proudly brandishing as sensible talk makes this debate with you extremely excruciating. If you want to debate the theory of evolution, I expect minimal knowledge of its postulates from you. When you read the books on evolution, you can come and discuss the individual points. Right now, you're merely resorting to red-herring points which are irrelevant to the topic, like fish becoming humans or foxes becoming lions and you think you're making intelligent points. What you don't know is that these points are as nonsensical to the biologist as they are to you. No biologist makes such frivolous claims. Evolution is not magic, it talks about a convergent point for all species, not a linear transmogrification from one species to another

Again, that is simply not true. Evolution talks about changes in KIND from one specie to a different specie. Saying otherwise is untrue and doesn't do any kind of justice to the topic. Darwin also thought that if nature could change one species of finch into several different species, then it could change an amoeba into a man. That is the issue here.

I leave you with a food for thought: There are two versions of ignorance, one born out of the lack of knowledge, and the other, from misleading education. It can be said of the latter, that it is the more malignant form because, not only does the ignorant individual not know anything on the subject, they adamantly defend their conviction of ignorance because they tenaciously cling to the presumption that they know.

Yet you haven't told me how we came from an amoeba other than "changes over a long period of time". Darwin’s theory of evolution is false for a host of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that it cannot account for the origin of life. According to Darwin, the simple cell, which he honestly thought was simple—contrary to modern cell biology—could have arisen from non-living chemicals in a warm little chemical pond (Darwin, 1959, 2:202). You are trying so hard to ignore such statements.

It only shows how uninformed you are about the subject you claim so much to know about

Liekiller:


There seems to be a spell on the understanding of certain individuals who are trying to debate things they know nothing about. I more suspect it's the result of a combination of a totally defunct education system in combination with omnipresent religious brainwashing. more moderate believers have no problem with it, only fanatics do. Our "hidden truths" are by no means hidden. It's all one mouse click away. In more developped countries it is taught from primary school onwards. It's common and fundamental knowledge.

so the fundamental knowledge is that a fish,rather than your mum,birthed you?....I prefer my common-sense to your super-intelligent style of reasoning....Even in developed countries,not every1 is buying the theory of 'evolution',and these are people of same race and colour with Darwins....and here you are,a member of an inferior race,swallowing a joke of a theory because it was brilliantly presented to you at a tym when you weren't wearing a tin-foil hat.....trust me when i say that you won't believe this same theory if an african was 1st to propound it.....and talking about being taught in schools in the west....i know it won't have crossed his city let alone crossing the shores of africa...Africans and their inferiority complex sef...

AgentOfAllah:




SMHFY
You make me want to believe in god, if only to ask it to slap some sense into you. You're hopeless!! Haha

brother,i'm finding some rib-cracking comics in this joke of a theory...Baba God,when will i get so gullible that i'd fancy Darwins and 'evolution'?

alexis:

[size=15pt]He [Darwin]even went further to say that all living things came from non-life. So, these are his claims (Yours as well)
[/size]

Given your mendacious antecedents of fabricating nonsense, I really don't think you could, but I'll still ask anyway: Can you cite where Darwin said the above?

You know when someone has reached the point of desperation when they have to stoop to the inelegance of mendacity to earn cheap points.

alexis:
The Chordata phylum doesn't prove anything Bros, jelly fishes are not vertebrates yet considered fishes. Then act like a scientist and make it clear that evolution is just what it is - a theory/an assumption that you insist on being the correct answer to life when you can't prove it. All I ask is that you be honest.

Another reason to ignore you. You think a jellyfish is a fish, when actually, it is a zooplankton. This is the same person trying to debate evolution, and he doesn't even know the basics. I guess you've never heard of the word "misnomer" before. I would be shocked if you don't think seahorses are actual horses. We should coin a new word for people like you, ignolatry; that is, the worship of ignorance. You don't deserve my time!

Don't bother Bros - so far you are close to building an alien ship than to proving your reasoning is actually objective.



I never said shared ancestry - THAT IS NOT THE CLAIM HERE. Your claim is that we are of the same KIND, there-fore we are related. The proof of my lineage to my grand parents can be tested an replicated. For one:

1. My grand-parents were humans; we shared 100% in every way possible the very same DNA - ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE.
2. Since they were humans, and I am human - if I mate with another human i.e. OF THE SAME KIND - Another human will be born.

Idio.ts like you decide to put your reasoning in the trash-bag when it comes to matters of science. I have repeatedly asked you to provide REPEATABLE, REPLICABLE, OBSERVABLE PROOF that we humans can originate from fish - so far, you have been successful at showing your public stupid.ity than your scientific claims. Your stupi.di.ty is beginning to offend me



Stop trying to cover your lies. Macro evolution does claim two similar specie of the same KIND can give rise to a different specie of another KIND. Your claims of "subtle and gradual adaptations to different environmental needs" cannot be proven by science nor can it be proven in a lab. That is why I have stated such claims are beliefs rather than tested science. Your entire premise hinges on claims that you can't prove. I am actually beginning to think you are constipated



Evolutionists always do the same thing, you just have to be patient for them to dig their own graves. If you are claiming micro-evolution i.e. species of the same kind produce another specie of the same kind - then you and I shouldn't be having this discussion. However, your claims are that same species of one KIND can give rise to a different specie of a different KIND. This is what Darwinism is all about - all different KINDs of species originated from one single specie which originated from a non-life. Now, you are here twisting your words and saying otherwise.



I can't respond to a website that anyone can edit and update. You can provide snippets from respected Scientist and universities and I will refer to them and respond accordingly. Scientists don't refer to wikipedia to lay claims. You can attempt to do the same on your thesis in school and wait for the response from your professor.



Darwin claim is that we all i.e every single KIND of animal, plant and living thing came from the same ancestor? The dog, cat, croc, elephant, humans, whales, flowers, flies etc were genetically modified "over a long" period of time and that gave rise to complex creatures. If you can prove with facts, conduct scientific repeatable and observable process "what actually happened" "OVER THE LONG PERIOD" of time to. He even went further to say that all living things came from non-life. So, these are his claims (Yours as well)

1. Life came from non-life: I will leave this bone for you to crack later
2. Single & simple life form somehow evolved into trees, bats, cock roaches, moths, sharks, jelly-fish, humans, lions, apes, honey badger etc.
3. Darwin never stated if you crossed a fish with a croc it will produced a new kind of animal literally. He did go further and say, crocs and fishes are products of random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code. He didn't care to explain "HOW IT HAPPENED" with any proof. So, the fish was sitting down and due to some unknown reason, it modified over-time and evolved to be a snake. So on and so forth and here we are humans. THAT IS DARWIN CLAIM



Dude - that is simply not true. Darwin claim is that all life came from non life and developed from a simple form to complex forms. Were do they brain-wash you guys? Darwin claimed that life started on earth in a 'warm little pond'. He favored the possibility that life could appear by natural processes from simple inorganic compounds, his reluctance to discuss the issue resulted from his recognition that at the time it was possible to undertake the experimental study of the emergence of life.

Please refer to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745620/. Read his reference on how life started and try and SHUTUP after that



Malu, when did I mention hydrogen? Idiot.s like you don't reason objectively. If you want to debate me on any subject, I will gladly indulge you. All I ask if that you bring some proof with you.



I said macro-evolution is a theory and can't be proven in a science lab - your response was this link: http://ultraphyte.com/2012/02/21/evolution-in-the-lab/. It was at this point that I stated two species of the same KIND doesn't give rise to a different KIND of animal. Either read the question pretty well or look at yourself in the mirror because you call someone else a LIAR



Stop insisting on being stup.id man. You and I are not related to cock roaches or jelly-fishes - SUCH CLAIMS CAN'T BE PROVEN EVEN IF YOU SAY IT ONE BILLION TIMES. You simply can't prove it scientifically. That is why it's a belief because it can't be proven scientifically. They are ideas of one man that have been amplified.



The Chordata phylum doesn't prove anything Bros, jelly fishes are not vertebrates yet considered fishes. Then act like a scientist and make it clear that evolution is just what it is - a theory/an assumption that you insist on being the correct answer to life when you can't prove it. All I ask is that you be honest.



Cha - mumuness no good oh. Please read my posts again. I never claimed that we don't share similarities with other animals. My claim is that we are distinct and unique. A human is a human and didn't evolve from a fish. A fish is a fish and didn't evolve from an amoeba. A flower is a flower and didn't evolve from anything else other than a flower. Every living thing in it's class is unique and is not a product of a random accident over time that you can't explain. I advise that you go back to your drawing board and decide to either become a magician or a scientist - you can only be one

*yawn* ...Boring

AgentOfAllah:


You weren't science inclined in school? No wonder! Yet you're trying to dismiss a well established scientific theory. Calling you stu.pid is a benevolent euphemism.



Now you're not just ignorant. You're also quite crazy too! You insult the doctors and nurses who sacrificed their lives to save Nigeria from a major pandemic with your stupidity.

All those drips, and carefully administered medicines weren't the reasons the survivors survived, it was because Christians and Muslims prayed to god. Answer me these 5 questions:

1) Did you hear of anybody who survived Ebola outside of the hospital?

2) Did you hear of Sis Jartu Kerkulah?
She was a prayer warrior who lost her life to Ebola. Guess how...your god's Ebola curing prowess in action.

3) Why did your god allow an Ebola outbreak in the first place?

4) Why hasn't your god performed his miracles in the other Ebola ravaged countries?

5) If as you claim, it's the grace of god, not science, that stopped Ebola, then what exactly is America expecting to learn from Nigeria? How to invoke the grace of god? Never knew you needed special classes for that!

Please park well jarre!!!

and what exactly is America expecting to learn from Nigeria?to replace z-map with salt and kolanut?....dumbass thing...Between America and Nigeria,who got the better health facilities?and who's ebola-free 2day?.....'I'd show mercy upon whom i'd show mercy,and have compassion upon i'd have compassion' ...[Romans 9:15] gives a inkling of an answer on why the 'weak' was exalted above the 'strong'.....Now back to where you still assert that fishes and planktons are your ancestors[not mine].......can you,coherently this time,explain why you and Darwins think that there's no invisible brick wall that prevents an organism from mutating into a completely different organism with completely different physical features?...seize this opportunity and be my biology teacher (*sneering*if only you won't teach me bloody crap...)

alexis007:
'theory of evolution' can kiss my ass...till some genius scientist would explain how two fishes would mate to produce a human being [no fins,no gills,no natural body temperature that tolerates water as an abode]...and since they lay eggs which hatch their young...i'm thinking about a situation where two tilapia fishes were cooling off after having sex only to see the eggs they lay hatch out Adam [of course that is the world's 1st man]....Oh my G!..Darwins is a terrible Joker!

with this statement above I think you don't understand a thing about evolution. I have seen Christians with mature minds argue against evolution before but never have I seen such show of foolishness.

alexis:
AgentOfAllah
When people copy and paste from Wikipedia in an online debate, it bores me. I have addressed this statement above, please refer to it. I am getting physically tired responding to the same thing over and over again.

"Thou shall not bear false witness"---9th of Yahweh's 10 commandments.

You're a shameless, pathetic LIAR! If my mathematical reasoning was too complex for you, you could simply have asked me to break it down, and I would even have been happy to share with you the freshly plotted figures of the reference plots to enhance your understanding, instead your arrogance compelled you to wrongfully accuse me of copying and pasting from Wikipedia. Share the Wikipedia link I copied from if you are truthful. Olodo!

alexis007:

Now back to where you still assert that fishes and planktons are your ancestors[not mine]

It's interesting you mentioned fish and planktons. Your half-baked, half-namesake friend thinks a jellyfish is a fish, when actually, it is a plankton.

.......can you,coherently this time,explain why you and Darwins think that there's no invisible brick wall that prevents an organism from mutating into a completely different organism with completely different physical features?...seize this opportunity and be my biology teacher (*sneering*if only you won't teach me bloody crap...)

I shall oblige you because you have asked a valid question, in spite of the not-so-subliminal hint of derision in your question. I will start and end with a simple question which you should keep in mind for later: If you take a look at the numerous branches on a massive 700 year-old tree, does it make sense to talk about an invisible brick wall between the branches?

Now, to understand Darwin's theory, let us proceed with a very simple abstract concept, numbers. Let's call this the theory of numbers (ToN).

We all agree that the numbers 0, 1, 2, 3 .... all have their unique, individual and discrete identities, yes? Now, what you may not know is that the difference between 0 and 1 is a continuous straight line. What that means is that there is literally an infinite array of numbers that can fit between 0 and 1. So my question is: What separates these two numbers? You will see that whereas 0 is not 1, if you add enough infinitesimal amount of numbers, say 1X10^-10000 (microevolution) to zero, it eventually "evolves" into the distinct number 1 with time (macroevolution). The same is true for the separation between 1 and 2, 2 and 3 and so on and so forth. But our ToN doesn't end there. This simple premise also means that with enough microevolution, our number 0 can evolve into the number 1 trillion (with time). So, again, I ask, what separates 0 from 1 trillion? The very interesting thing about our ToN is that at every discrete integer point, each number has its unique identity, but also has shared identities with other numbers. Take note that these numbers aren't independent creations, but are linked to each other by a (one dimensional) line.

Okay, what happens if I make a second dimensional line that branches off the main line from the number 3 (refer to the figure below)? This second dimensional line consists of discrete integers that are prime numerals (i.e. only divisible by 1 and themselves). It's a different branch, from the main line leading to 1 trillion, but it is still connected to the main line by an infinitesimal amount of numbers (microevolutions that only identify with prime numbers). You can make many other identity (multidimensional) branches from the main line, (e.g. even numbers, odd numbers, palindromic numbers, numbers in Fibonacci sequence etc) and these branches will look nothing like each other. How did we achieve such diverse macroevolution of numberforms (analogous to lifeforms)? Only by adding small numbers that are infinitesimally small, they are de facto 0.



Our Theory of Numbers therefore, prove one point: That microevolusion will in fact, diverge into macroevolution with enough time. I hope you're following so far. So, the question then, can be divided into two parts, namely:

1) Is there evidence that such infinitesimal evolution is happening in biological organisms, and
2) What is driving such increments.

The answer to the first question is yes! We find slight genetic variations in species that suggests that these differences are acquired by adapting to new environments. How do we know this? Well, basically, the frequency of alleles, which are genetic markers on the DNA strands of living creatures changes with species, based upon the culture that is under investigation. We have also found that many animals have vestigial body parts which are remnant body parts that have fallen out of use for their respective environments, and therefore, aren't as expressed as they once were in their ancestors. For example, if you look at a whale, one of the few marine mammals, it has no hind legs, but when you look at its skeleton, you find that it has vestigial hind leg bones. Why? The only conclusion is that its ancestors had hind legs at some point in the past, and since legs are only useful on land, our conclusion must necessarily be that the whale was at some point in the past, a land creature which returned to the sea. Indeed, fossils with full arms and legs, resembling a whale, have been discovered in Pakistan. These are colloquially referred to as walking whales, but are called Ambulocetus in biology. We also know of the blind-moles, which are completely blind, yet have small eyes covered by a thick layer of skin. Why do they have eyes if they don't need them? Obviously, their ancestors must have had eyes in the past, which then fell out of use because of their environment. But those eyes are still there, just not useful anymore. We all also know Lions and tigers to be different species of felines, yet they have been shown to produce offsprings when they mate. Why? Aren't they supposed to be different "kinds"? The most compelling evidence for a common ancestry is that there are certain types of proteins present in the genes of all living things. While such a fact does not on its own, suggest a common ancestry (horizontal gene transfer may cause shared proteins too) the fact that these proteins are statistically favoured to be localised around certain regions on the DNA suggests that they were derived from the same parent. This was the work of Douglas Theobald, which he submitted to Nature journal, one of the most reputable journals in the world of science, under the title "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry" Not sure if you can access Nature publications at your location, but in case you can, the link is Here. I don't want to bore you with technical detail, so I'll switch to metaphors.

Besides genetics and fossil records, can it be demonstrated that humans and fish have similar ancestry? No! And I'll explain why: Imagine you were to uproot a 700 year-old massive tree and then at very small intervals, you cut it cross-sectionally, from its roots to its last leaf. If you picked up the lowest part of the root and the tip end of the leaf, will you be able to immediately demonstrate that the tip of the leaf came from the root of the tree? Most definitely not! There would only be three ways to demonstrate such a fact, as follows:

1) You plant the root of the tree, wait another 700 years, and hope its branches and leaves grow in exactly the same manner.
2) You rearrange the small cross-sectional parts of the tree from the roots to the trunk to the branches until you get to the tip of the leaf. If the tip of the leaf fits in that arrangement, you can say you have demonstrated the fact
3) You can determine the genetic make up of the root of the tree and the tip of the leaf. If they correspond, you have a high degree of certainty that the tip comes from the root.

If we examine these methods, we can immediately see that the first method is an impossibility because it is highly unlikely that your life will be patient with you for 700 years; and even if you lived for 700 years, you still don't know that the root and the leaf will grow in exactly the same manner as 700 years ago. I mean, no two orange trees look exactly alike, nor do two branches of the same tree. This method is analogous to you asking for proof that a fish can turn into human. It is senseless, so we rule this method out.

Method 2, arranging each part of the cross-section, is more likely to yield a result, although, a lot of things could have happened to the individual cross sectional parts of the tree, for example, some parts of its trunk might have lost some water due to evaporation, making it impossible for you to fit such parts into the continuum as they would appear incompatible. Also, some parts of the leaves might have dried up and crumbled, meaning you will be missing many parts eventually, when you fit the puzzle. You may get an overall big picture, but you might never get the complete picture. This method is analogous to the many fossils that were preserved and show gradual changes in life forms with time. How do we know that these changes happened in time, and not at the same time? Well, the fossils are found in rocks and the age of these rocks are estimated using radiometric dating. The age of the rocks gives an indication of when these fossils got fossilised, and hence, the time in which such life form existed. In the case of Trilobites, for example, fossil records show a gradual increment in their sizes and complexity as time elapsed. We will never be able to get the complete picture of our tree of life because every new fossil is a matter of luck, but all the fossils we have found so far give a big picture of common ancestry if we are to consider that generally, the older the rocks, the more primitive the life-form in it looks

Method 3: Genetic tests of the root and leaf tip will give you a probabilistic statement that a leaf and root come from the same tree. This method is analogous to the Universal Common Ancestry (UCA) theory. Here, we can see science in its full glory. The genetic sequencing of many living things has enabled us to connect local trees of convergent species. And continuously, what we see are small clusters (leaves) converging into branches, which converge into a bigger family of branches, which converge into the three's trunk, and finally to the root. Isn't this spectacular? We can actually see how far along the line the species have diverged, often forming a new so-called 'kinds'

2) Naturally, you want to know what drives evolution. Simple, it is the need to survive and adapt to new natural realities, which keep changing. For example, genetics have shown that man originated from east Africa. East Africa has a vast savannah landscape. The main feature of savannahs is their sparsely spaced trees. Now consider this: The landscape wasn't always savannah. It became so due to changing climate. As the trees became further and further apart, man came down from the tree. Instead of the normal tree to tree hopping that our close primate cousins do, we had to walk from one tree to another in search of food and shelter. Becoming bipedal, therefore became more natural for us (to conveniently see where we were going) than walking on all four. Another feature of the savannah is their short trees, so man became more exposed to the scorching heat of east Africa than ever before. How did we deal with this? We shed our furs (body hair). We became less hairy than our simian cousins. Though, we haven't lost the muscles that control bodily hair, so we still get goosebumps when we're scared or when we're cold. In animals with fur, when they are threatened, these muscles contract, raising their body hair to make them appear bigger than they actually are, so as to scare away their tormentors. Also, these muscles contract when the animal is very cold, so that the standing hair acts as windbreaker of a sort. Neither of these functions (protection from cold and scaring off predators) are fulfilled in modern day humans, yet, we still experience goosebumps, why? Vestigial muscle. Also, we have a vestigial tailbone and useless wisdom teeth. Why? These are useful to our ancestral cousins, but not us, yet we have them. Only natural selection can explain such things, hence, the driving force for evolution is mainly natural selection.

I know you're probably bored by now, but much respect to you if you actually read my essay to this point. Feel free to shoot me with any question you may have.

Allow me to end this with the question I asked earlier: If you take a look at the numerous branches on a massive 700 year-old tree, does it make sense to talk about an invisible brick wall between the branches?

I leave you to answer it for yourself.

Blakjewelry:

with this statement above I think you don't understand a thing about evolution. I have seen Christians with mature minds argue against evolution before but never have I seen such show of foolishness.

the same way my show of foolishness bogle your mind...the same your gullibility bogles mine...