So far, no creationist has repudiated the assertion (as they have done previously on this and other threads) that the theory of evolution is a scientific fact

davidylan:

how? Please explain how DNA lends credence to the theory of evolution.

allow me to evaluate this - "it smacks of gross ignorance to equate the study of fossils to the theory of evolution" . . . this is quite baffling. The theory of evolution requires a fossil record as concrete evidence. To suggest that somehow the fossil record is completely divorced from the theory of evolution is absolute crap and clear evidence you have no idea what you are talking about.

Even primary school pupils now know that all living things are propagated or reproduced by means of eggs or seeds consisting of genes or chromosomes which are made of DNA (isn't it an irony that an adult who claims to be a biologist doesn't understand the implication of this fact?). In other words all living things whether plants or animals can be reduced to a common chemical formular: the DNA (Deoxyribose nucleic acid).

We are all nothing but a collection of chemical compounds, brains and all. The difference between a Rabbit and a human is only a matter of rearrangement or resequencing of DNA! Its as simple as that.

Why is it so far-fetched to assume that all living things must have evolved from a common ancestor?

turnstoner:

Even primary school pupils now know that all living things are propagated or reproduced by means of eggs or seeds consisting of genes or chromosomes which are made of DNA (isn't it an irony that an adult who claims to be a biologist doesn't understand the implication of this fact?). In other words all living things whether plants or animals can be reduced to a common chemical formular: the DNA (Deoxyribose nucleic acid).

We are all nothing but a collection of chemical compounds, brains and all. The difference between a Rabbit and a human is only a matter of rearrangement or resequencing of DNA! Its as simple as that.

Why is it so far-fetched to [size=15pt]assume[/size] that all living things must have evolved from a common ancestor?

I didnt understand your logic here. You seemed to just go on a ramble and ended up saying exactly nothing. How does DNA help you ASSUME that you evolved from a common ancestor? Please lucidly advance that argument.

To say that the difference between a rabbit and a human is a mere rearrangement of DNA is evidence that you probably have never gone beyond high school biology.

For all your empty bluster, your argument here can be boiled down to this - humans and plants possess DNA, DNA is thus the common unit of life... hence plants and animals must have evolved from the same ancestor! Can you explain how animals and plants could have evolved from the same ancestor considering plant DNA is absolutely nothing close to human DNA?

turnstoner: So far, no creationist has repudiated the assertion (as they have done previously on this and other threads) that the theory of evolution is a scientific fact

No atheist has logically defended this assertion either beyond throwing empty faith-based claims here and there.

davidylan:

No atheist has logically defended this assertion either beyond throwing empty faith-based claims here and there.

No one should waste his time with creationist-biologist Davidylan. He has already been destroyed on evolution long ago
https://www.nairaland.com/922920/destruction-creationists-olaadegbu-brainpulse-bigd4050

Logicboy03:



No one should waste his time with creationist-biologist Davidylan. He has already been destroyed on evolution long ago
https://www.nairaland.com/922920/destruction-creationists-olaadegbu-brainpulse-bigd4050

You shld just have said you have no answers to the questions we have posed to you for the last 1 yr. About time to give your online empty jingoism a rest. The rest of us have jobs.

davidylan:

You shld just have said you have no answers to the questions we have posed to you for the last 1 yr. About time to give your online empty jingoism a rest. The rest of us have jobs.

I answered you questions on that thread and debunked you!

You and the OP have been caught making ignorant statements on evolution. I have learnt that wasting time with people that argue against hardcore evidence is not worth it.

Logicboy03:

I answered you questions on that thread and debunked you!

You and the OP have been caught making ignorant statements on evolution. I have learnt that wasting time with people that argue against hardcore evidence is not worth it.

You've become a standing joke. Besides... crying "debunk" at every one isnt proof that you truly know what you are talking about.
Secondly, since when did you realize that arguing in the face of "hardcore evidence" is not worth it? you've been practically living on these pages for over a year its sometimes a wonder that you have time to brush your teeth in the morning.

On a side note... i would be very happy to see your "hardcore evidence". It appears your buddy turnstoner has no ideas and is probably ferreting the internet for links to copy/paste as we speak.

Logicboy03:



No one should waste his time with creationist-biologist Davidylan. He has already been destroyed on evolution long ago
https://www.nairaland.com/922920/destruction-creationists-olaadegbu-brainpulse-bigd4050

Thanks. Indeed I am surprised to see he is posting again. He had agreed previously that where logic is concerned, creationists/religionists have no case. Maybe he has regained his second wind, like the proverbial cuckold that was dealt a near death blow!?

davidylan:

You've become a standing joke. Besides... crying "debunk" at every one isnt proof that you truly know what you are talking about.
Secondly, since when did you realize that arguing in the face of "hardcore evidence" is not worth it? you've been practically living on these pages for over a year its sometimes a wonder that you have time to brush your teeth in the morning.

On a side note... i would be very happy to see your "hardcore evidence". It appears your buddy turnstoner has no ideas and is probably ferreting the internet for links to copy/paste as we speak.

I don't ferret from the internet. All my posts are off the cuff!

turnstoner:

Thanks. Indeed I am surprised to see he is posting again. He had agreed previously that where logic is concerned, creationists/religionists have no case. Maybe he has regained his second wind, like the proverbial cuckold that was dealt a near death blow!?

As usual, duck when you cannot answer your to your own verbose nonsense.

I agree that religion has very little to do with human logic. The bible admits that much.

I just asked that you explain your logic that led you to assume that humans AND plants evolved from a common ancestor. Or perhaps your assumption here is based on "faith"?

turnstoner:

I don't ferret from the internet. All my posts are off the cuff!

Oh ok... you must have no idea what you're talking about then since your "off the cuff" comments make no sense from the perspective of SSCE biology. See above.

davidylan:

Oh ok... you must have no idea what you're talking about then since your "off the cuff" comments make no sense from the perspective of SSCE biology. See above.

Fortunately, besides you there are other readers of our posts. It is they that I address. You, I have learned, are not susceptible to logic

turnstoner:

Fortunately, besides you there are other readers of our posts. It is they that I address. You, I have learned, are not susceptible to logic

and pray what "logic" have you addressed to them?
Obviously i have better things to do than engaging ignorant folks who disguise their own ineptitude with feigned disinterest.

Logicboy03:

I answered you questions on that thread and debunked you!

You and the OP have been caught making ignorant statements on evolution. I have learnt that wasting time with people that argue against hardcore evidence is not worth it.

Who is the ignorant one? You did not even know that there was some uncertainty about your precious KN E R 1813.

honeychild:

Who is the ignorant one? You did not even know that there was some uncertainty about your precious KN E R 1813.

Feel free to quote me as supporting evidence

honeychild:

Well like I pointed out a couple of posts ago, scientists are not really too sure what exactly it is. It may be a homo erectus, homo ergaster or homo habilis.

(Quote) (Report) (Like)
Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by Logicboy03(m): 12:50am On Dec 25

lies

turnstoner: Uyi Iredia and honeychild are way way out of their depth in this matter, but don't know it! They think they are making sense because there are respondents ready to indulge them .

And you are supposed to be making sense

turnstoner:
Why is it so far-fetched to assume that all living things must have evolved from a common ancestor?

No one has seen it happen, insurmountable pathways, ineffectual evolutionary mechanism etc.

Uyi Iredia:

No one has seen it happen, insurmountable pathways, ineffectual evolutionary mechanism etc.

lolz....yet you are arguing for a god that no one has seen, no logical argument for him exists and the bible is ineffectual.


Common descent has enough evidence. You are free to be ignorant.


God has none. You cant point to any physical evidence for god.

Logicboy03:

lolz....yet you are arguing for a god that no one has seen, no logical argument for him exists and the bible is ineffectual.


Common descent has enough evidence. You are free to be ignorant.


God has none. You cant point to any physical evidence for god.

you miss the point. No one is arguing that religion is the bastion of human logic... however the problem is when atheists like yourself try to babble on that your disbelief is somehow anchored on some logical scientific reasoning.

Logicboy03:

lolz....yet you are arguing for a god that no one has seen, no logical argument for him exists and the bible is ineffectual.


Common descent has enough evidence. You are free to be ignorant.


God has none. You cant point to any physical evidence for god.

Actually common descent has no evidence. The fossil record lacks one transitional species. In fact a new theory - punctuated equilibrium - was made precisely because of that. I can easily point to the order of things in Nature as a basis for inferring God. You know the funny thing is your reply wasn't germane to my comments. You didn't tackle the points I listed.

Uyi Iredia:

Actually common descent has no evidence. The fossil record lacks one transitional species. In fact a new theory - punctuated equilibrium - was made precisely because of that. I can easily point to the order of things in Nature as a basis for inferring God. You know the funny thing is your reply wasn't germane to my comments. You didn't tackle the points I listed.

Have you heard of DNA?


mtchew

Logicboy03:



Have you heard of DNA?


mtchew

I note that your responses to Uyi's PINPOINT queries are mostly irrelevant one-liners that are so puzzling with regard to how exactly they pertain to the post you are quoting. It really isnt compulsory to respond to EVERY post particularly if you really have nothing to say.

Turnstoner raised the "DNA" issue yesterday as well and i remember getting no response back when i asked this simple question - plants have DNA just as man does... should that be "evidence" for common descent too?

Logicboy03:



Have you heard of DNA?


mtchew

Yes I have. So what about it.

davidylan:

I note that your responses to Uyi's PINPOINT queries are mostly irrelevant one-liners that are so puzzling with regard to how exactly they pertain to the post you are quoting. It really isnt compulsory to respond to EVERY post particularly if you really have nothing to say.

Turnstoner raised the "DNA" issue yesterday as well and i remember getting no response back when i asked this simple question - plants have DNA just as man does... should that be "evidence" for common descent too?

So how does plant having DNA destroy common descent if the theory is that all life came from unicellular organisms?

Uyi Iredia:

Yes I have. So what about it.

Link it with common descent

Logicboy03:




So how does plant having DNA destroy common descent if the theory is that all life came from unicellular organisms?

How does your theory support common descent between animals and plants?

davidylan:

How does your theory support common descent between animals and plants?

Why do I have the feeling that once I answer this ignorant question with evidence, the evidence will be overlooked to ask another ignorant question?


De ja vu or historical evidence of stupidity from creationists? hmm?

Logicboy03:



Why do I have the feeling that once I answer this ignorant question with evidence, the evidence will be overlooked to ask another ignorant question?


De ja vu or historical evidence of stupidity from creationists? hmm?

Yawn. Please provide the evidence already.
this delay, punt and feign disinterest tactic is getting old.

davidylan:

Yawn. Please provide the evidence already.
this delay, punt and feign disinterest tactic is getting old.

Chances are his evidence will be a quote from Wikipedia.

Logicboy03:

Link it with common descent

Let him answer. BTW you link it with common descent and I will tell you why you are wrong.