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!

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.

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!

*yawn* ...Boring

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?

Peterken05:
i'm tired

alexis007:
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...

alexis007:
@ agentofallah...you duplicated your full biology textbook here and expect me 2 study it?...dude biko,abridge that epistle....who'd read all that nah?am i preparing for a final year examination?...

and i really need to follow you to your village so that i can see this 700-year old tree you are talking about...

alexis:


Where does biology show with proof that you can get one kind of specie from another kind of specie?

alexis:

You have summed up your mathematical reasoning quite well. We are off-springs of fishes and amoeba - you are arrived at that conclusion because someone else said so. . Look, I hardly have time for idio.ts. You have posted wikipedia several times even when I stated that scientists and serious researchers don't refer to wikipedia. Since you want to know which link you posted - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

AgentOfAllah:

You asked for my coherent argument, and I obliged. I even made an illustration just for you. If you didn't want it you shouldn't have asked, and I wouldn't bothered. Maybe your unwillingness to read is the problem here.


700 years is quite young in tree age. Trees can live for several thousands of years of you let them.

AgentOfAllah:

You asked for my coherent argument, and I obliged. I even made an illustration just for you. If you didn't want it you shouldn't have asked, and I wouldn't bothered. Maybe your unwillingness to read is the problem here.


700 years is quite young in tree age. Trees can live for several thousands of years of you let them.

alexis:

You are not only stu.pid but blind as well. This was what I posted:

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)

My mistake. My intent was to state that jellyfishes are not vetebrates as humans yet the claim that we are all came from a single organism doesn't hold water. I admit that I made an error.

Coming from someone who can't refute what I posted. Cha!. The claims here are simple; if we indeed did come from single cell organism, we should be able to repeat the process. So far, you haven't come close to providing an example of how to repeat such process.

Liekiller:


*sigh* I'm starting to think you must be a troll because nobody could possibly be THIS dumb and incoherent

alexis007:
now i'm dumb and incoherent because i don't see things your way?who on earth said that scientists can't be arrogant fanatics as well?If this one has met Islam b4 science...he'd make a devout,rank-and-file member of the ISIS group

alexis007:
it's just that it was so long that i thought you were writing me a dissertation

Liekiller:


no, I would NOT say such a thing if we were talking about mere opinions. I respect your opinion (and your belief too btw - as long as you keep it out of science). But we are talking about scientific facts which, when presented to you, you refuse to even read and instead make fun of without having read and understood the meaning. See the great efforts AgentofAllah has gone through in order to explain things in great detail. Yet the only thing I have seen from you so far is mockery and nonsense. I mean... if you don't wish to learn what you are ignorantly talking about, and you don't wish to have a sensible debate what are you doing in this thread?!

AgentOfAllah:


You asked for it!!!

alexis007:
you now want me out of this thread?i hope you are joking...because the last time i checked,i still reserve my freedom of association...and naughty me,that Allah guy worked himself out just to convert me to darwinism....he tried battering his way 2ru an impenetrable fortress.i sincerely do hope that long dissertation he wrote me was copied-and-pasted from Wiki (which is relatively easier than trying to form arguments on your own)....and just like peter,i've backed out of the debate(it's no use trying to convince one to see abiogenesis the biblical Genesis way when he is already more evolutionist than charles darwins)....i'm only here to inject a brief comic relief after alexis and you hotheads must have wasted your tym and data typing vain crap...

Liekiller:


I rest my case. you ARE a troll, and a fool, and you are wasting everybody's time

alexis007:
you now want me out of this thread?i hope you are joking...because the last time i checked,i still reserve my freedom of association...and naughty me,that Allah guy worked himself out just to convert me to darwinism....he tried battering his way 2ru an impenetrable fortress.

i sincerely do hope that long dissertation he wrote me was copied-and-pasted from Wiki (which is relatively easier than trying to form arguments on your own)

....and just like peter,i've backed out of the debate(it's no use trying to convince one to see abiogenesis the biblical Genesis when he is already more evolutionist than charles darwins)

....i'm only here to inject a brief comic relief

after alexis and you hotheads must have wasted your tym and data typing vain crap...

alexis007:
asked for a saga?....you are not serious...anyway keep this epistle...you know,it could win you mega millions in an essay competition

I think I see where your coming from. You're quoting a Christian apologetic site (http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=610) which probably misquoted/intentionally misconstrued Darwin. I'll excuse that. Now I'm asking you to provide me with a specific reference where Darwin made such a claim. (Darwin, 1959, 2:202) is not a reference because it does not tell me where to look. Kindly reference the book/journal and page number (like I did when I referenced the origin of species). If it's from a journal, also provide the year, volume and issue numbers. I have access to all manuscripts ever published in the history of science, so please show me where Darwin made such a claim. Contrary to what your fake apologetic site claims, evolution does not talk about the origin of life, it assumes the a priori existence of life, much like Newton's work on gravity does not speculate on the source of gravity, but assumes the existence of gravity

Glad you haven't sacrificed all of your honesty on the alter of blind faith.

Every time a sperm cell fertilises an egg, it becomes a single cell organism. With time, this single cell becomes a complex being via mitosis, so your assumption that complexity cannot emerge from a single entity is hokum!

If you want me to show you evidence of a fish producing a human offspring, you first repeat the process of your great-grandparents giving birth to your grandparents, and then your parents and then you.

If that process is scientific but unrepeatable, then I wonder why you think science requires that evolutionary facts must be repeatable to be true.

There are tools were use, e.g. DNA sequencing, to verify them, very much in the same way DNA tests can verify your great-grandparents.

Don't try to save your face. You're a liar, and I called you out. You mendaciously accused me of "copying and pasting" from Wikipedia now you changed your accusation from "copy and paste" to posting a link. Which is still a lie. I hyperlinked a word which I used in my text, but I didn't copy and paste from wiki or post a link. When a word is hyperlinked, you don't have to click on it. I only hyperlinked it because I thought it might be useful, but the hyperlink played no role in the content or quality of my text.

On Wikipedia, do you mean to claim that there are no factual contents? We're having a scientific discussion, yes, but it's not a formal discussion, so I can use Wikipedia as a reference. Like I earlier said, tackle the message, not the messenger. If you wish to contest anything in the particular Wikipedia article I shared because it is scientifically inaccurate, please do so, then we can discuss further. But dismissing it because it is from Wikipedia is an informal logical fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem or "poisoning the well", which is a disingenuous thing to do. But then again, you're no stranger to dishonesty, are you? And yes, in case you didn't notice, I hyperlinked your fallacy to Wikipedia so you can educate yourself.

Liekiller:


FOSSILS. GENETICS. COMPARATIVE ANATOMY. ATAVISMS. AND SO ON.

alexis:


Let's get specific and use one case example so we are not running and chasing our tails. Darwin claimed that complex organisms came from simple organisms i.e. from an amoeba came a human. To be sure we are on the same page, is my statement correct?

Liekiller:


bros, you have already admitted you're a troll using your other profile. I take your word for it. Let me guess, another jobless American kid on social welfare? How much of our time do you still want to waste? You're clearly not as dumb as you pretend to be (ever since you use this profile you are able to string sensible sentences together, haha), so what's your point?

alexis007:
you now want me out of this thread?i hope you are joking...because the last time i checked,i still reserve my freedom of association...and naughty me,that Allah guy worked himself out just to convert me to darwinism....he tried battering his way 2ru an impenetrable fortress.i sincerely do hope that long dissertation he wrote me was copied-and-pasted from Wiki (which is relatively easier than trying to form arguments on your own)....and just like peter,i've backed out of the debate(it's no use trying to convince one to see abiogenesis the biblical Genesis way when he is already more evolutionist than charles darwins)....i'm only here to inject a brief comic relief after alexis and you hotheads must have wasted your tym and data typing vain crap...

alexis007:
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...

alexis:


You seem to be mistaken me for someone else. Look at my posts, they go as far as 2006. I stated that alexis and alexis007 are two different people, I don't know who alexis007 is. So, it appear you have me mixed up with someone else.

If you don't want to debate, no problem. If you want to, let's have an honest objective discussion.

My points are:

1. If complex life came from simple organism as claimed by Darwin and evolutionist, shouldn't there be multiple examples and instances were we can reproduce the same in this day and age? If we are here today because we came from simple organisms, surely we should be able to prove it in everyday life and it should be a common occurrence
2. At what point did different KIND of species started to originate from the single/simple organism?
3. Can you provide specific fossil examples showing the lineage of how one specie developed into another kind of specie

I look forward to your response

alexis:
AgentofAllah

Can you please address these questions:

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?