SirWere:


Again, brother, evolution has absolutely nothing to say about how the first cell occured. It only talks about what happened after the first cell occured.

The branch of biology dealing with the problem of the first cell is abiogenesis, bro.

Read what you wrote again and see the evolutionary dilemma.

If evolution cannot account for how the first cell occured then where is the basis of evolution since the same evolution says we all came from a single celled organism?

For your answer to this question I need to grab some popcorn and Pepsi

naijadeyhia:



Do salt crystals change on their own? Does iceblock melt on its own? If the answer is no and we all came from one single celled ancestor WHAT TRIGGERED THE FIRST EVOLUTION OR CHANGE especially since no scientist know anything about the environmental conditions or atmospheric conditions millions of years ago and have always only assumed?

Yes, salt crystals do not melt on their own but they do IN RESPONSE TO THE CHANGES TO THEIR ENVIRONMENT.

It's the same with DNA. Afterall, it's still a molecule.

Geologists have studied the history of the earth coupled with astro-physicsits exploits into different planets and drew up a possible simulation and scenario of how the earth looked like.

That's how evolutionary biologists can draw up possible scenarios and go look for possible evidences.

SirWere:


Yes, salt crystals do not melt on their own but they do IN RESPONSE TO THE CHANGES TO THEIR ENVIRONMENT.

It's the same with DNA. Afterall, it's still a molecule.

Geologists have studied the history of the earth coupled with astro-physicsits exploits into different planets and drew up a possible simulation and scenario of how the earth looked like.

That's how evolutionary biologists can draw up possible scenarios and go look for possible evidences.

Correction. Not possible scenarios. Probable scenarios. Continue with your story I am drinking pepsi and chewing on popcorn while I read because this will be some awesom scifi stuff.

naijadeyhia:



Read what you wrote again and see the evolutionary dilemma.

If evolution cannot account for how the first cell occured then where is the basis of evolution since the same evolution says we all came from a single celled organism?

For your answer to this question I need to grab some popcorn and Pepsi

Ok, let's branch a bit.

Physicists accept the big-bang theory as responsible for the existence of the universe- and have found evidence supporting that theory. However, when asked "what caused the big-bang", you tend to hear a lot of "err....." and assumptions.

Right now, the currently leading assumption is string theory and multiverse theorem but yet, there's still no conclusive proof.


It's exactly the same quandary physcisits find themselves in that biologists find themselves in.


They can say with fairy reasonable certainity as to what happened after the first cell evolved?; but what happened before, you get "err......."


The leading theory is abiogenesis but they're a lot of wild theories; like parspenia, Extraterrestials and the like.



And, abeg, you fit pass gala here

Physicisit

SirWere:


Again, brother, evolution has absolutely nothing to say about how the first cell occured. It only talks about what happened after the first cell occured.

The branch of biology dealing with the problem of the first cell is abiogenesis, bro.

You just nailed it, bro.
A bottle of odeku for you!! That's what we are saying.
If Evolutionist couldn't account for the genesis of the first cell, how could assumption( which hasn't even been proved right) about how the Tracing of all organisms emerged from that first cell, they knew little about?
Does that make sense?

"You need to grasp the basics of evolution first to understand what I am saying"..............................................But YOU are the one who thought that evolution is about 'monkey-
bats'(No such thing), 'parakeet-buffalos'(no such thing either)!!!

Infact, from what I have been reading here(that is, assuming you are honest enough to admit it), today is the first day in your life, that you are realizing that you never even knew what evolution talks about to begin with!!!

SirWere:


Ok, let's branch a bit.

Physicists accept the big-bang theory as responsible for the existence of the universe- and have found evidence supporting that theory. However, when asked "what caused the big-bang", you tend to hear a lot of "err....." and assumptions.

Right now, the currently leading assumption is string theory and multiverse theorem but yet, there's still no conclusive proof.


It's exactly the same quandary physcisits find themselves in that biologists find themselves in.


They can say with fairy reasonable certainity as to what happened after the first cell evolved?; but what happened before, you get "err......."


The leading theory is abiogenesis but they're a lot of wild theories; like parspenia, Extraterrestials and the like.



And, abeg, you fit pass gala here

Physicisit

So if all you wrote above refutes evolutionary origins why then are you arguing in support of evolution when you have proof that its all erm erm erm ...a mystery still?

naijadeyhia:



Correction. Not possible scenarios. Probable scenarios. Continue with your story I am drinking pepsi and chewing on popcorn while I read because this will be some awesom scifi stuff.

Thanks for the correction.

naijadeyhia:



Would there even be a fossil if there is no DNA let's start there. I think that is a better place to begin

there are DNA in fossils bro.

naijadeyhia:



Similarity isnt an exact representation. I asked for LIVING PROOF of the same organism with a DNA match and not similarities. Is there any?

It's not hundred percent. The difference is what constitutes the change in the organism

@naijadeyhia please help me paraphrase and proper this question to the atheists.
1. If humans, monkeys, apes, orangs etc come from a common ancestor, how can it be possible that despite that ancestor living in the same environment, feeding on the same meal and generally having similar ways of life, the ancestor has different types of descendants. I mean, an ape or chimp should not have been satisfied at its state and should have further evolved to humans.
Please help me rephrase this question and ask on my behalf.
Modified: how did scientists come about the age of the earth and those fossils....or rather the sedimentary rocks that housed the fossils.

Niflheim:
"You need to grasp the basics of evolution first to understand what I am saying"..............................................But YOU are the one who thought that evolution is about 'monkey-
bats'(No such thing), 'parakeet-buffalos'(no such thing either)!!!

Infact, from what I have been reading here(that is, assuming you are honest enough to admit it), today is the first day in your life, that you are realizing that you never even knew what evolution talks about to begin with!!!

Really? Yet those of you who have known it for years cannot offer me proof or convincingly counter my points?

If truly I am a first timer and can take you old timers on and whip your behinds then that says a lot of the theory of evolution doesn't it?

@naijadeyhia, these are your words!!!..............................."Man does not have a tail bone".

Now this is an article from livescience!!!..............................http://www.livescience.com/21513-vestigial-organs.html

SirWere:


Thanks for the correction.

Nice answer, though.
But, don't you think, the source of a fact should be well grounded, before its branches or the other way round?

My point!
Evolution central idea comes from the single cell.
Now if the source isn't grounded properly, is it safe to rely on that theory

SirWere:
there are DNA in fossils bro.

Exactly! So if DNA in the fossil was once responsible for that living creature that became fossilised and yet unknown because they had not seen a living kind of that fossil, where then did the DNA comparison in perfection come from?

@naijadeyhia

Coming to an online forum with nothing less than 1.6 million members, to "CLAIM" that Evolution is about "ants with human heads", then being corrected, and yet, STILL CLAIMING THAT YOU CAME HERE TO WHIP PEOPLE'S ASSES, is a sign of Intellectual Dishonesty!!!

Phi001:
@naijadeyhia please help me paraphrase and proper this question to the atheists.
1. If humans, monkeys, apes, orangs etc come from a common ancestor, how can it be possible that despite that ancestor living in the same environment, feeding on the same meal and generally having similar ways of life, the ancestor has different types of descendants. I mean, an ape or chimp should not have been satisfied at its state and should have further evolved to humans.
Please help me rephrase this question and ask on my behalf.
Modified: how did scientists come about the age of the earth and those fossils....or rather the sedimentary rocks that housed the fossils.

The summary is that science has no comparative analysis in perfection to evolution so is all based on assumptions and probable theories.

naijadeyhia:



So if all you wrote above refutes evolutionary origins why then are you arguing in support of evolution when you have proof that its all erm erm erm ...a mystery still?

That's because evolution never presumes that it knew the origin of the first cell.......



And because, when you really look at evolution, it is a really grand theory.

SirWere:
That's because evolution never presumes that it knew the origin of the first cell.......



And because, when you really look at evolution, it is a really grand theory.

YET YOU DEFEND THIS GRAND THEORY WHICH YOU KNOW ITS ROOTS ARE NOT VERIFIABLE EVEN BY THE SAME PROPONENTS OF EVOLUTION? wow!

"I do not believe mammoths and elephants share the same ancestor"........................................................AND NEITHER DO I!!! DNA evidence has already "PROVEN" the common ancestry!!!

@Naijadeyhia, do you know the name given to people who deny evidence?......................................................https://student.societyforscience.org/article/mammoth-modern-elephant

Niflheim:
@naijadeyhia

Coming to an online forum with nothing less than 1.6 million members, to "CLAIM" that Evolution is about "ants with human heads", then being corrected, and yet, STILL CLAIMING THAT YOU CAME HERE TO WHIP PEOPLE'S ASSES, is a sign of Intellectual Dishonesty!!!

If you still do not know why I phrased my question the way I did even after I explained why on this thread then just stop!

tempem:


You just nailed it, bro.
A bottle of odeku for you!! That's what we are saying.
If Evolutionist couldn't account for the genesis of the first cell, how could assumption( which hasn't even been proved right) about how the Tracing of all organisms emerged from that first cell, they knew little about?
Does that make sense?

A physicists does not know what caused the big bang; yet he can still tell you, with reasonable certainity, how the universe "evolved" to what it is today.



A grammarian does no know what the first language was, yet he can still tell you how english ebolved.



A mathematican cannot tell you where numbers came from; but still uses it to perform operations.



Nigeria cannot tell you how the first Political party in the world was formed; yet shout APC/PDP.



Capsice?

Niflheim:
"I do not believe mammoths and elephants share the same ancestor"........................................................AND NEITHER DO I!!! DNA evidence has already "PROVEN" the common ancestry!!!

@Naijadeyhia, do you know the name given to people who deny evidence?......................................................https://student.societyforscience.org/article/mammoth-modern-elephant

I think you need to have a private discussion with sirwere because he is saying you are lying while you are saying he is. And both of you are evolutionists.

naijadeyhia:


Exactly! So if DNA in the fossil was once responsible for that living creature that became fossilised and yet unknown because they had not seen a living kind of that fossil, where then did the DNA comparison in perfection come from?

DNA does not fossilize, it's a molecule, dude.

SirWere:


A physicists does not know what caused the big bang; yet he can still tell you, with reasonable certainity, how the universe "evolved" to what it is today.



A grammarian does no know what the first language was, yet he can still tell you how english ebolved.



A mathematican cannot tell you where numbers came from; but still uses it to perform operations.



Nigeria cannot tell you how the first Political party in the world was formed; yet shout APC/PDP.



Capsice?

Yet evolution is supposed to explain language, intelligence and consciousness right? Same evolution that cannot trace its source?


Interesting.

Niflheim:
@naijadeyhia

Coming to an online forum with nothing less than 1.6 million members, to "CLAIM" that Evolution is about "ants with human heads", then being corrected, and yet, STILL CLAIMING THAT YOU CAME HERE TO WHIP PEOPLE'S ASSES, is a sign of Intellectual Dishonesty!!!

Its not true.. The facts are obvious!!
The fact that you can put grammars together, speak confusingly and not convincingly doesn't mean you are speaking the truth or you are honest.

Am interested in evolution,( am not saying I just want to start learning about it, I want to believe) but before I venture in it, is it reasonable not to know the basics that formed it?
You are the uniformed, here... You only lay claims to theories that has been proven wrong.
Even SirWere was kinda honest than you are.

naijadeyhia:



YET YOU DEFEND THIS GRAND THEORY WHICH YOU KNOW ITS ROOTS ARE NOT VERIFIABLE EVEN BY THE SAME PROPONENTS OF EVOLUTION? wow!

Roots? Which roots??

Evolution never pretended to know the origin of life, stop this charade.


And, trust me, I'm not "defending" evolution. If I were, I'd be using more technical language

"Neither do I believe man came from apes"......................................................YOU AND I ARE STILL ON THE SAME PAGE HERE!!! The only slight difference here is that we have evidence for it, so I do not need to "BELIEVE" it!!! I have accepted it as a fact!!!

@Naijaheydia,

For 2 million Naira!!! The GULO gene(and please, don't tell me that you don't know what the GULO gene is), is the reason why humans squeeze lemon on top of fish in all those fancy restaurants!!! The GULO gene is what is supposed to assist we primates in synthesizing Vitamin C, but due to the fact that it is no longer functioning, we humans and apes, must get it from outside sources!!! HOW COME, THE GULO GENE IN BOTH APES AND HUMANS IS BROKEN IN THE EXACT SAME PLACES?!!!

SirWere:


DNA does not fossilize, it's a molecule, dude.

Do you know whaf a fossil is?

fossil
ˈfɒs(ə)l,-sɪl/
noun
the remains or impression of a prehistoric plant or animal embedded in rock and preserved in petrified form.
"sites rich in fossils"
synonyms: petrified remains,


DNA designed the now fossilised creature. Understand before u respond.

SirWere:


Roots? Which roots??

Evolution never pretended to know the origin of life, stop this charade.


And, trust me, I'm not "defending" evolution. If I were, I'd be using more technical language

We are saying the same thing. Evolution does not know its origin (roots).

So why build an elaborate story on nothing?

SirWere:


Roots? Which roots??

Evolution never pretended to know the origin of life, stop this charade.


And, trust me, I'm not "defending" evolution. If I were, I'd be using more technical language

Believe me, I know. Knowing an honest person doesnt require long effort. When one is honest, he's honest.
Take this, joor.

"So because we have same number of fingers with apes means we came from them?"................................................................JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!!! Now I am certain that you are just trolling!!! Are you sure you came here to learn? I shall repeat myself again!!!

I compared the following:
1.Chromosome Count
2.Near-identical skeletal frame
and 3:External features which includes the finger print count AND THE LANUGO HAIR WHICH APPEARS AT THE SAME TIME IN BOTH THE HUMAN AND APE EMBRYOS.................................AND DISAPPEARS AT THE SAME TIME IN BOTH HUMAN AND APE EMBRYOS!!!...............................................................http://ideonexus.com/2013/10/20/evolutionary-wonders-in-a-newborn-baby/