Kay17:

But you close your eyes to the huge variations within homo sapiens. Africans, Chinese (and other southeast Asians), Caucasians, South Americans, Eskimos etc have varying physical features and skin colours. To evolutionists, that's a proof of evolution otherwise all humans would be alike.

yea there are variations but it doesn't stop them from being humans.

Peterken05: ...grow up bro, you are a logical being, behave logical and rational, its going to help you.

you also need to grow up and stop hating on a God u do not believe exist as if u actually believe he exist.

EMILO2STAY: yea there are variations but it doesn't stop them from being humans.

Yes homo sapiens however neaderthals are humanoid but not considered humans.

A brown bear is of different species from the polar bear but they are bears.

EMILO2STAY: you also need to grow up and stop hating on a God u do not believe exist as if u actually believe he exist.

nobody is hating on anything, we talking about evolution here, we talking about science, its you that want to bring your god into it, i dont care what you believe or think. If you wanna bring bible or god into science thats when i have problems with you.

Peterken05: nobody is hating on anything, we talking about evolution here, we talking about science, its you that want to bring your god into it, i dont care what you believe or think. If you wanna bring bible or god into science thats when i have problems with you.

how did i bring God into this, as a matter of fact u brought it when u said i should state mystries bible have answers to but science dont, i stated one but u couldn't answer, instead u started an attack on a God u believe does not exist. Take it easy, dont eat ur flesh in hatred for my God.

EMILO2STAY: how did i bring God into this, as a matter of fact u brought it when u said i should state mystries bible have answers to but science dont, i stated one but u couldn't answer, instead u started an attack on a God u believe does not exist. Take it easy, dont eat ur flesh in hatred for my God.

i think this is where i will stop arguing with you, saying something about creation means you 're saying something about a supernatural being that created things and what is it/he/she called? Is it not God? Wake up

EMILO2STAY: Yes: however, this was not a problem. Inbreeding is a problem when children are born with identically defective genes for some function or control from both their mother and their father. When the mother andfather are closely related, they will a have many of the same genetic aberrations, and this increases the chances of a significant number of mutations. In the original creation, therewere no genetic aberrations, so there was no practical problem to inbreeding. Only over time are genetic errors are introduced(around 40 mutations per generation). To avoid these mutations leading to death and disability, it is not sufficient to avoid sharing a parent with your spouse: it is wise not to marry anyone where the family link can be demonstrated. You can also tell me how the first homo sapien got his wife.

You, Sir, are a case of your own. When I made you aware of the inbreeding matter, you called it a blasphemous lie or whatever the exact word was (as you call everything about biology a lie, as if you were even qualified to know). Now you admit it but invent some nonsense to make it sound plausible. I have decided not to argue with you any longer because
1) your knowledge of biology is less than primary school level, and you are not willing or able to improve on that
2) your fanaticism and arrogance doesn't allow you to look at evidence and understand/evaluate it
3) you simply refuse to understand anything that could burst your beloved fairytale bubble of incest in garden eden.
A reasonable discussion is not possible on this basis. Some will forever wallow in self-inflicted arrogance.

Liekiller:

You, Sir, are a case of your own. When I made you aware of the inbreeding matter, you called it a blasphemous lie or whatever the exact word was (as you call everything about biology a lie, as if you were even qualified to know). Now you admit it but invent some nonsense to make it sound plausible. I have decided not to argue with you any longer because
1) your knowledge of biology is less than primary school level, and you are not willing or able to improve on that
2) your fanaticism and arrogance doesn't allow you to look at evidence and understand/evaluate it
3) you simply refuse to understand anything that could burst your beloved fairytale bubble of incest in garden eden.
A reasonable discussion is not possible on this basis. Some will forever wallow in self-inflicted arrogance.

when did i say inbreeding was a lie, u said eve slept with her children but i proved u wrong. And which knowledge of biology are u talking about, u mean the of theory of evolution lies u peddle without facts?, if that is what u call knowledge then keep it to urself i dont need it.

EMILO2STAY: when did i say inbreeding was a lie, u said eve slept with her children but i proved u wrong. And which knowledge of biology are u talking about, u mean the of theory of evolution lies u peddle without facts?, if that is what u call knowledge then keep it to urself i dont need it.

LOL "proved me wrong"? With what? Were you there to see it with your own eyes as you demand from those trying to explain evolution to you?! And what difference does it make anyway if brothers impregnate their sisters or their mother? it's all the same, I*N*C*E*S*T!
Biology is more than only evolution, but you can't understand evolution without understanding a few very basic scientific principles and basics of biology. Since you don't want and don't need such knowledge I wonder why you keep talking about it. You are certainly free to wallow in your self-inflicted ignorance. But why don't you just keep your deluded fanaticism to yourself, and especially keep it out of science where it has no place.

Liekiller:

LOL "proved me wrong"? With what? Were you there to see it with your own eyes as you demand from those trying to explain evolution to you?! And what difference does it make anyway if brothers impregnate their sisters or their mother? it's all the same, I*N*C*E*S*T!
Biology is more than only evolution, but you can't understand evolution without understanding a few very basic scientific principles and basics of biology. Since you don't want and don't need such knowledge I wonder why you keep talking about it. You are certainly free to wallow in your self-inflicted ignorance. But why don't you just keep your deluded fanaticism to yourself, and especially keep it out of science where it has no place.

i have proved you wrong whether u admit it or not. U can keep beating about the bush for all i care, u can also try to keep ur deluded fanaticism to urself and out of christianity.

EMILO2STAY: i have proved you wrong whether u admit it or not. U can keep beating about the bush for all i care, u can also try to keep ur deluded fanaticism to urself and out of christianity.

Your way of arguing is very childish and stubborn. All you ever do is twist everybody's words around by 180°. How old are you actually? 12?

Liekiller:

Your way of arguing is very childish and stubborn. All you ever do is twist everybody's words around by 180°. How old are you actually? 12?

now look who's accusing me of twisting words...SMH keep beating about the bush.

EMILO2STAY: there is nothing to know about evolution but baseless unconfirmed assumptions.

Good, you admit u are ignorant on evolution
My guess is that you know nothing about biology

macof:

Good, you admit u are ignorant on evolution
My guess is that you know nothing about biology

you don't even need to guess... read his shocking posts and your suspicion shall be more than confirmed

EMILO2STAY: more than 500 yrs of living in the bush should have produced some speciation traits in these people if evolution is true. The sentineles people of andaman island india have been isolated from civilzation for about 60,000 years but still show no signs of evolution.

as for the eve matter, we have the europeans, chineess. whom most of them are products of interbreeding living among us today. So ur statement is not true.

A population in isolation from others over a long period like 500 yrs tend to have gotten different in factors like phycology, culture(food, cloths or lack of it), language, immunity to certain diseases, prone to other diseases all this evolutionary changes to adapt to their new environment, this creates a different identity known as clans or tribes although this isn't exactly biological but socio-scientific

However 500yrs is not enough to create an identity of "specie", 500 isn't even enough to create an identity of Ethnic group
So when we talk Macro evolution be reasonable enough to not expect such in 500yrs

can u proof the bold?
1. The period they have been away from other people
2. That they have undergone no changes
If u can't I take it that you are lying

macof:
A population in isolation from others over a long period like 500 yrs tend to have gotten different in factors like phycology, culture(food, cloths or lack of it), language, immunity to certain diseases, prone to other diseases all this evolutionary changes to adapt to their new environment, this creates a different identity known as clans or tribes although this isn't exactly biological but socio-scientific

However 500yrs is not enough to create an identity of "specie", 500 isn't even enough to create an identity of Ethnic group
So when we talk Macro evolution be reasonable enough to not expect such in 500yrs

can u proof the bold?
1. The period they have been away from other people
2. That they have undergone no changes
If u can't I take it that you are lying

google is ur friend.

EMILO2STAY: google is ur friend.

Right, and it's just more biology. Your interpretation of the whole story is bizarre, and the conclusions you draw are WRONG
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hub/summary/v073/73.5murhekar.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC378623/
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2802%2901336-2

EMILO2STAY: google is ur friend.

Also ur friend. U cannot use the same google to search for articles on Evolution, you prefer to display how poor Nigerian education is

GJames:
90% of the World's scientists accepting it does not make it truth, there was a time when almost all philosphers, wise men and even scientists of the dark ages believed the earth was flat. To you God doesn't exist because you can't see him, feel him, or figure his origin, i can't either, but evolution has done nothing to explain the origin of Man whether 99% of the scientists in the World accept it. Feel free to prove my post wrong bit by bit without insulting me

from history Christopher Columbus 1886 is when the view of the world was spherical was publicly accepted to some persons. the ancient Egypt astronomers knew that the earth was spherical. the Sanskrit of Hinduism did not say the Earth was flat. it was the church father's who were discussing and arguing about the flat earth..... till Christopher Columbus using ship navigation was able to prove to them the earth is spherical. NB The European people always love to define their environment as the world, which is not so.... there are people in China and America and other parts of the world with different believes.

rastarman:
from history Christopher Columbus 1886 is when the view of the world was spherical was publicly accepted to some persons. the ancient Egypt astronomers knew that the earth was spherical. the Sanskrit of Hinduism did not say the Earth was flat. it was the church father's who were discussing and arguing about the flat earth..... till Christopher Columbus using ship navigation was able to prove to them the earth is spherical. NB The European people always love to define their environment as the world, which is not so.... there are people in China and America and other parts of the world with different believes.

I don't see how this is meaningful for this discussion. Science is NOT about "beliefs". We no longer live in the 19th century, and apart from a few bizarre fundamentalists nobody is discussing whether or not the earth is flat anymore. Nowadays there is a set of standards that the scientific community around the world adheres to. It doesn't matter whether a study is conducted in Malaysia, Siberia, Colombia or Australia as long as it passes the scrutiny of international peer review. In fact, most research is conducted by teams composed of people from around the world.

rastarman:
from history Christopher Columbus 1886 is when the view of the world was spherical was publicly accepted to some persons. the ancient Egypt astronomers knew that the earth was spherical. the Sanskrit of Hinduism did not say the Earth was flat. it was the church father's who were discussing and arguing about the flat earth..... till Christopher Columbus using ship navigation was able to prove to them the earth is spherical. NB The European people always love to define their environment as the world, which is not so.... there are people in China and America and other parts of the world with different believes.

The book of Job spoke of the earth being spherical and hanging on nothing.

GJames:
It is actually difficult to believe in a God whose origin i can't explain, but i find it even harder to believe that this complex beign (man) evolved from a unicellular organism.

God is an infinite being that is not bound by space or time. Anything outside space and time is largely incomprehensible to we that are bound by space and time. Our concept of the state of nothingness is what is neither space, matter nor time. This state is called infinity. An infinite nothing cannot create something whereas an infinite something or entity is capable of creation.

Hey Rosement, don't mind this thread.
I'm Cornellboy, this is my other account.
How have you been doing?
Hope your studying the Bible extensively to see the TRUTH?

..