@ CoolUsername ... also read the comments in the article

KingEbukasBlog:


A single cell is believed to be the ancestor to all life forms on earth . Here read : http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/

Oh! That's what you were talking about? Well of course there's no limit because evolution is incremental, the slate is ever wiped clean. If it was then you won't look like your relatives.

Evolution moves in stages. Here is one of the chains (evolution is a ridiculously complicated web so for the sake of my sanity I'll simplify it very much):

Bacteria to protozoa to nematodes to insects to crustaceans to fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds to weird mammals (I'm just using that to denote mammals that lay eggs) to mammals.

Every single animal is a missing link in the tree of life.

KingEbukasBlog:

No the same question has been asked over and over again . In summary , Im bored .


Adam and Eve had other children alongside Cain and Abel . The bible paid attention to Cain and Abel just because of the murder event. These people lived for a long time . So its safe to assume that life kicked off in earnest after creation .

Nope. They had Cain and Abel. Then Seth BEFORE the rest. Read your bible.

CoolUsername:


Oh! That's what you were talking about? Well of course there's no limit because evolution is incremental, the slate is ever wiped clean. If it was then you won't look like your relatives.

Evolution moves in stages. Here is one of the chains (evolution is a ridiculously complicated web so for the sake of my sanity I'll simplify it very much):

Bacteria to protozoa to nematodes to insects to crustaceans to fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds to weird mammals (I'm just using that to denote mammals that lay eggs) to mammals.

Every single animal is a missing link in the tree of life.

But there are still bacteria and protozoa and insects ... why didnt they evolve ?

Nope. They had Cain and Abel. Then Seth BEFORE the rest. Read your bible.

Its your opinion . You can wish to learn or not

dalaman:


And the creator is Allah.

My friend u have been brainwashed by a subset of Abrahamic religion. this is a problem for Africans

THe great Kwame Nkrumah said

The African mans mind is a battle ground between

! Athesim
2 christainity
3 islam
4 traditional African culture

This ultimately leads to massive confusion.

This is why Africa has no apparent progress

KingEbukasBlog:


But there are still bacteria and protozoa and insects ... why didnt they evolve ?

Dude, this is the single most ignorant question about evolution that exists. I thought
you actually understood it. Species BRANCH out from each other dude.
Follow this link:
darryl-cunningham..co.nz/2011/06/evolution.html?m=1

Google these: archaeopteryx, lungfish, tree of life.

That first link is of utmost importance, dude. I feel you should know about evolution before arguing against it. But that's the thing about indoctrination, it has made you dismiss evolution without ever fact checking.

Take this step to critical thinking then we can talk.

CoolUsername:

Dude, this is the single most ignorant question about evolution that exists. I thought
you actually understood it. Species BRANCH out from each other dude.
Follow this link:
darryl-cunningham..co.nz/2011/06/evolution.html?m=1

Google these: archaeopteryx, lungfish, tree of life.

That first link is of utmost importance, dude. I feel you should know about evolution before arguing against it. But that's the thing about indoctrination, it has made you dismiss evolution without ever fact checking.

Take this step to critical thinking then we can talk.

So has primary speciation been observed in bacterial evolution ?

KingEbukasBlog:


So has primary speciation been observed in bacterial evolution ?

Well, the specie line is difficult to establish in bacteria since they reproduce asexually and the major marker of species is the ability to interbreed.

But that doesn't mean I'm going leave you hanging, it has been observed in insects.

Consider this (kinda long but hella informative!):

William R. Rice and George W. Salt found experimental evidence of sympatric speciation in the common fruit fly. They collected apopulation of Drosophila melanogaster from Davis, California and placed the pupae into a habitat maze. Newborn flies had to investigate the maze to find food. The flies had three choices to take in finding food. Light and dark (phototaxis), up and down (geotaxis), and the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis) were the three options. This eventually divided the flies into 42 spatio-temporal habitats.
They then cultured two strains that chose
opposite habitats. One of the strains emerged
early, immediately flying upward in the dark
attracted to the acetaldehyde. The other strain
emerged late and immediately flew downward,
attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from the
two strains were then placed together in the
maze and allowed to mate at the food site.

They then were collected. A selective penalty was imposed on the female flies that switched habitats. This entailed that none of their gametes would pass on to the next generation. After 25 generations of this mating test, it showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. They repeated the experiment again without creating the penalty against habitat switching and the result was the same; reproductive isolation was produced.

Edit: R3tarded spacing

CoolUsername:
Well, the specie line is difficult to establish in bacteria since they reproduce asexually and the major marker of species is the ability to interbreed.

But that doesn't mean I'm going leave you hanging, it has been observed in insects.

Consider this (kinda long but hella informative!):

William R. Rice and George W. Salt found experimental evidence of sympatric speciation in the common fruit fly. They collected apopulation of Drosophila melanogaster from Davis, California and placed the pupae into a habitat maze. Newborn flies had to investigate the maze to find food. The flies had three choices to take in finding food. Light and dark (phototaxis), up and down (geotaxis), and the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis) were the three options. This eventually divided the flies into 42 spatio-temporal habitats.
They then cultured two strains that chose
opposite habitats. One of the strains emerged
early, immediately flying upward in the dark
attracted to the acetaldehyde. The other strain
emerged late and immediately flew downward,
attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from the
two strains were then placed together in the
maze and allowed to mate at the food site.

They then were collected. A selective penalty was imposed on the female flies that switched habitats. This entailed that none of their gametes would pass on to the next generation. After 25 generations of this mating test, it showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. They repeated the experiment again without creating the penalty against habitat switching and the result was the same; reproductive isolation was produced.

Edit: R3tarded spacing

Well I'm a computer scientist and reaching my limit in this field (No shame in that though). Here's an article refuting the evidence of evolution observed in fruit flies

http://www.icr.org/article/no-fruit-fly-evolution-even-after-600/

KingEbukasBlog:


Well I'm a computer scientist and reaching my limit in this field (No shame in that though). Here's an article refuting the evidence of evolution observed in fruit flies

http://www.icr.org/article/no-fruit-fly-evolution-even-after-600/

This article doesn't refute this experiment at all. In the experiment, isolation was influenced by the scientists but every other variable was as natural as possible, but this article talks about a different experiment with scientists trying to artificially mutate the genes.

You're grasping at straws now, dude.

CoolUsername:
This article doesn't refute this experiment at all. In the experiment, isolation was influenced by the scientists but every other variable was as natural as possible, but this article talks about a different experiment with scientists trying to artificially mutate the genes.

You're grasping at straws now, dude.

scientists like davidylan would have known if speciation occurred in fruit flies . He has always maintained there is no such thing as macro evolution . Well I'll watch videos after arsenal's match . Both - for the 'evidence' and the rebuttals .

KingEbukasBlog:


scientists like davidylan would have known if speciation occurred in fruit flies . He has always maintained there is no such thing as macro evolution . Well I'll watch videos after arsenal's match . Both - for the 'evidence' and the rebuttals .

(¬‿¬)
We both know what has happened here.
Let's accept it in silence.

CoolUsername:
(¬‿¬)
We both know what has happened here.
Let's accept it in silence.

Well sir vooks ... do fuitflies prove evolution ?

KingEbukasBlog:


Well sir vooks ... do fuitflies prove evolution ?

Oh! so I out-debated you guys individually, now you're teaming up against me. I think I have the right to nope the fvck out of this one.

CoolUsername:
Oh! so I out-debated you guys individually, now you're teaming up against me. I think I have the right to nope the mess out of this one.

I am making discussions outside my field , so its understandable . Now can you out debate me when we talk inside my field ?

KingEbukasBlog:


I am making discussions outside my field , so its understandable . Now can you out debate me when we talk inside my field ?

Biology isn't even my field, dude.

I'm just saying that I'm too exhausted to debate two people right now. Especially people I've debated before. It's been a hectic fortnight for me on this forum.

CoolUsername:
Biology isn't even my field, dude.

I'm just saying that I'm too exhausted to debate two people right now. Especially people I've debated before. It's been a hectic fortnight for me on this forum.

So what's your field ?

Kopping out ?

Or you scared of vooks ?

KingEbukasBlog:


So what's your field ?

Kopping out ?

Or you scared of vooks ?

I'm an engineering student.

I'm copping out 'cause I'm tired.

He's the one who's afraid of me, dude. He's the one who abandoned our last debate when I called out for calling a fact a lie.

CoolUsername:
I'm an engineering student.

I'm copping out 'cause I'm tired.

He's the one who's afraid of me, dude. He's the one who abandoned our last debate when I called out for calling a fact a lie.

Engineering - a field of 'study' the physicists mock

Everyone abandons debates due to loss of interest or debating an intellectually inferior opponent

You deal with mechanical designs and haven't found proof a creator's works on nature ?

Please dont say natural processes , it just makes it worse

KingEbukasBlog:


Engineering - a field of 'study' the physicists mock

Everyone abandons debates due to loss of interest or debating an intellectually inferior opponent

You deal with mechanical designs and haven't found proof a creator's works on nature ?

Please dont say natural processes , it just makes it worse

Oooof! Hit me right in the feelings there, bruh.

So tell me, why computer science? University didn't give you engineering, right?

Oh, and ps:
(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:･ﾟ✧ NATURAL PROCESSES!!! (づ￣ ³￣)づ

Edit: I know I'm immature.

CoolUsername:

Oooof! Hit me right in the feelings there, bruh.

So tell me, why computer science? University didn't give you engineering, right?

Dayumm !

I applied for Comp Sci and I got it . There are future prospects of groundbreaking discoveries in computer science than in engineering .

We can stretch further into many areas in nature - biology , botany , sociology etc .

CoolUsername:

Oooof! Hit me right in the feelings there, bruh.

So tell me, why computer science? University didn't give you engineering, right?

Oh, and ps:
(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:･ﾟ✧ NATURAL PROCESSES!!! (づ￣ ³￣)づ

Edit: I know I'm immature.

Computational processes which simulate natural processes are designed . An example of blind faith is the belief that natural processes gave rise to the universe we live in .


You can only appreciate God's work on nature more with computer science

winner01:
if you werent so close minded, you'd have noticed that no scientific findings discredit the Bible.

You know bro, I ddnt want to answer you but your ignorance is pitiful, if someone doesn't believe in your Hebrew text then he is close minded?

I am certain that for someone to be an atheist, he or she must have read science books,philosophical books,biographies,autobiographies of great thinkers of the past, they would have wrestled with that deep inbuilt idea of a supernatural being and chosen to follow the evidence whereever that might lead,they are constantly searching for truth knowing fully well they dnt know it all.
A christian reads the bible and he believes he knows all the secrets of the universe and noone should challenge him unless they are closed minded...

Smh...Merry xmas

donnffd:


You know bro, I ddnt want to answer you but your ignorance is pitiful, if someone doesn't believe in your Hebrew text then he is close minded?

[size=20pt]I am certain that for someone to be an atheist, he or she must have read science books,philosophical books,biographies,autobiographies of great thinkers of the past, they would have wrestled with that deep inbuilt idea of a supernatural being and chosen to follow the evidence whereever that might lead,they are constantly searching for truth knowing fully well they dnt know it all.[/size]
A christian reads the bible and he believes he knows all the secrets of the universe and noone should challenge him unless they are closed minded...

Smh...Merry xmas

Please provide proof for these claims you made . Its funny that there are many knowledgeable Christians who see the world differently in a more intelligent way

KingEbukasBlog:


Please provide proof for these claims you made . Its funny that there are many knowledgeable Christians who see the world differently in a more intelligent way

Science never was atheistic, its just an enquiry of truth,synonymous to a homocide detective. Now imagine that this detective finds a victim being shot in the head and chest as evidently shown in the bullet holes but a passerby who claims he witnessed the murder claims it was a knife...which story would hold more ground?

How can Christians claim the world is 6000years old wen its obviously 4.5billionyears through evidence, how can you say we came from one man and one woman when the DNA evidence says the opposite,I could go on but I need to sleep, just the same way a detective would dismiss the obvious false story by the passerby for more evidence based claims, atheists dismisses religions false stories for more evidence based claims

donnffd:


Science never was atheistic, its just an enquiry of truth,synonymous to a homocide detective. Now imagine that this detective finds a victim being shot in the head and chest as evidently shown in the bullet holes but a passerby who claims he witnessed the murder claims it was a knife...which story would hold more ground?

How can Christians claim the world is 6000years old wen its obviously 4.5billionyears through evidence, how can you say we came from one man and one woman when the DNA evidence says the opposite,I could go on but I need to sleep, just the same way a detective would dismiss the obvious false story by the passerby for more evidence based claims, atheists dismisses religions false stories for more evidence based claims

There are young earth creationists and there are old earth creationists . Is there any evidence of abiogenesis ? How exactly was the moon formed ?

Is there any proof natural process brought forth the universe we live in ? Or you believe through blind faith ?

The so called false stories are naive ludicrous misconceptions .

Remove the speck from your eye before you try to remove your brother's

Matthew 7:5

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Making false accusations against Christianity and overlooking the foolishness and deception of atheism is hypocrisy .

KingEbukasBlog:


Computational processes which simulate natural processes are designed . An example of blind faith is the belief that natural processes gave rise to the universe we live in .


You can only appreciate God's work on nature more with computer science

That you can't prove.

Chizzled06:


Your question is irrational.

It's like someone asking to how Science discredits the Quran, the Torah etc.

You can't discredit something with no credence in the first place.

Its is a clear redline, give scientific facts that discredits the Bible.

.

CoolUsername:
That you can't prove.

We get ideas and try to replicate nature works digitally , analogously , computationally , algorithmically . Plus we describe the products which are faced with so many constraints as intelligent designs , so what we do speaks for itself

Chizzled06:


Atheism requires a leap of faith to believe in a causeless universe, one which I'm not prepared to take.

Dalaman

CoolUsername:
Who applies for computer science? You'll probably be obsolete in 10 years if you stay on your toes.

Telecommunication is my forte dude, Li-fi is where it's at!

But we need computer scientists to be honest, this coffee won't make itself!

Are you an earthling at all ?

Social Media Networks are all under CS . The brain behind the internet you use is under computer science . OS in laptops and smartphones are under CS . The apps , programs , websites are all CS . Automation in commercial industries will be the order of the day in years to come . We hope your job won't be taken

Not to talk of AI & robots - a replica of natural intelligence but man made .

You are no where bro .

winner01:
Dalaman

Lol ... Dalaman would turn a blind eye to this . He claims he is so sure that God did not create the universe