ifyken:

Your post if it was made by someone in the 18th century I would have forgiven you due to ignorance but in this 21st century where you have access to almost limitless information from the internet I cannot forgive you
Please Google is your friend, evolution is very slow. The first record human(homo sapiens) evolved from homo erectus around 200,000 years ago. Please no one is hiding information, it is all on the internet with proof for it unlike a certain way of life *cough*religion*cough*

Google won't teach you critical thinking. You didn't answer the main question. Did you avoid it or it is above your comprehension? Address the infinite retrogression

BTW, speculation/assumption is not a fact or proof. It is like a novice saying that Iphone 13 evolved from Nokia 3310.

Ok

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
Ok then scientist chin, what is the scientific PROOF, (not a regurgitation of what the theory is), of the theory evolution?

You should at least accept that you don’t know the difference between a scientific theory and a layman’s definition of theory.
There’s no shame in not knowing that since it’s obvious that you don’t have a science background.

Anything callled theory in science is explanation of natural phenomena and have been tested to be facts by repeatable experiments which includes theory of evolution, theory of gravity, cell theory and atomic theory.
Theory of evolution by natural selection has been tested by experiments and the results are consistent and it’s now fact in science just like other theories.
Science will not call it fact if it’s not and hasn’t passed rigorous tests sir

jmoore:

Google won't teach you critical thinking. You didn't answer the main question. Did you avoid it or it is above your comprehension? Address the infinite retrogression

BTW, speculation/assumption is not a fact or proof. It is like a novice saying that Iphone 13 evolved from Nokia 3310.

There is no critical thinking in believing that humans were created from dust by a god by just a statement.

Let’s don’t parade stupidity and ignorance as critical thinking. By all standard, it’s clear that we evolved from ancient species and all living things have common ancestor. It doesn’t matter if you deny it from now until next year because of your religion, it doesn’t make it less of a fact, it’s an established and undeniable fact in science.
The signature in DNA , fossil records and all biological science points to the fact that we evolved. It’s true whether or not you believe it.

jmoore:

Google won't teach you critical thinking. You didn't answer the main question. Did you avoid it or it is above your comprehension? Address the infinite retrogression

BTW, speculation/assumption is not a fact or proof. It is like a novice saying that Iphone 13 evolved from Nokia 3310.

Your first question was about z,a and b stuff.
You need to know that the first cell originated from dead things(organelles) for some reason we do not know so there is nothing like infinite regression. We already Know when it started from
Your second question was about why we have not evolved past this stage and I told you that evolution is slow.
In the future though we will probably be able to use genetic engineering to change our entire body structure from fertilization. Which means that you can decide your child eye color,hair color,skin color,height, intelligence etc. This is not just talk because it has already been proven because scientist have created muscled pigs(pigs with muscle),hairless chicken and glow in the dark fish which you can still google it
So I believe I have answered all your questions

Dtruthspeaker:


I have not met you before, great to meet you.

Since you have looked me up a little, I would tell you, it stands to record here that about 8 times your evolution people could not make a valid case at all

So saying "Evolution causes mutation. Radiation also causes it" is this not double talk and ass covering?

Exactly like say women give birth to children and men also do so?

Any who speaks this way, do we not call such person mad?

We all know why you desire evolution and it is not for any tangible reason other than to live irresponsibly and unaccountably without punishment for the wickedness and evils you have committed against others whom you joyfully fled from leaving them crying for ''Just Is"

So you wish to escape "Just Is" hence your wishfulness for evolution.

I don't live irresponsibly, i live by the law and retribution and punishment will be meted out on me if I don't follow them.
If you need the threat of hell fire to be 'good'(good is subjective since muslim terrorist also think they are good when they kill infidels and christain like righteousness89 think they are good by rambling incoherently about end time even on a topic that deals with clouds I say CLOUDS) then you are not good
There are evidences to support evolution
which I will not post here since if you are too lazy to open a new tab and google evidences of evolution then you are not worth my time.

ifyken:

Your first question was about z,a and b stuff.
You need to know that the first cell originated from dead things(organelles) for some reason we do not know so there is nothing like infinite regression. We already Know when it started from
Your second question was about why we have not evolved past this stage and I told you that evolution is slow.
In the future though we will probably be able to use genetic engineering to change our entire body structure from fertilization. Which means that you can decide your child eye color,hair color,skin color,height, intelligence etc. This is not just talk because it has already been proven because scientist have created muscled pigs(pigs with muscle),hairless chicken and glow in the dark fish which you can still google it
So I believe I have answered all your questions

.

You don't know the reason why first cells originated from dead things? You said there is nothing like infinite here because your perspective is too narrow. Where did the dead things(organelles) come from?


Your second answer is F9. A muscled pig is still a pig, hairless chicken is still a chicken. When you can create an entire new stuff from humans, let me know. A tip: A human that evolved into having wings called HomoShege.

chinasaekpere:
There is no critical thinking in believing that humans were created from dust by a god by just a statement.

Let’s don’t parade stupidity and ignorance as critical thinking. By all standard, it’s clear that we evolved from ancient species and all living things have common ancestor. It doesn’t matter if you deny it from now until next year because of your religion, it doesn’t make it less of a fact, it’s an established and undeniable fact in science.
The signature in DNA , fossil records and all biological science points to the fact that we evolved. It’s true whether or not you believe it.

Ape induced thinking .

Ancient species and all living things have common ancestor, where did the common ancestor come from?

chinasaekpere:
Ok You should at least accept that you don’t know the difference between a scientific theory and a layman’s definition of theory.
There’s no shame in not knowing that since it’s obvious that you don’t have a science background.

Anything callled theory in science is explanation of natural phenomena and have been tested to be facts by repeatable experiments which includes theory of evolution, theory of gravity, cell theory and atomic theory.
Theory of evolution by natural selection has been tested by experiments and the results are consistent and it’s now fact in science just like other theories.
Science will not call it fact if it’s not and hasn’t passed rigorous tests sir

We shall soon know who doesn't "know the difference between a scientific theory and a layman’s definition of theory".

How quickly you have turned into a 'prophet' to imagine that I "don’t have a science background".

Fortunately science is exact. So, chin, be SPECIFIC in your answer to the following questions, so that we wouldn't end up seeing that you actually accepted evolution by "faith" RATHER THAN by empiricism which science is based on.
1. How has evolution been "tested" like you put up there?
2. More importantly, what are the "facts by repeatable experiments" that PROVES evolution? What are the "tested experiments" which have produced "consistent results" that are "now fact in science"?

jmoore:


Ape induced thinking .

Ancient species and all living things have common ancestor, where did the common ancestor come from?

Please don't be lazy, everything you are asking can be googled and the answer given to you

jmoore:


This one is an upcoming atheist. Your question is built on confusion.

certainly. I see it too.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
We shall soon know who doesn't "know the difference between a scientific theory and a layman’s definition of theory".

How quickly you have turned into a 'prophet' to imagine that I "don’t have a science background".

Fortunately science is exact. So, chin, be SPECIFIC in your answer to the following questions, so that we wouldn't end up seeing that you actually accepted evolution by "faith" RATHER THAN by empiricism which science is based on.
1. How has evolution been "tested" like you put up there?
2. More importantly, what are the "facts by repeatable experiments" that PROVES evolution? What are the "tested experiments" which have produced "consistent results" that are "now fact in science"?

Please any answer that you ask that can be googled should not be asked. If you ask google the answer to your question is there

ifyken:

Please don't be lazy, everything you are asking can be googled and the answer given to you

Shutup. What the op posted first is on google too. Why is she repeating it here? If you can't answer my questions, waka pass.

jmoore:

Shutup

Why did you say that, I only say that you should google it
Even Christ says that "whoever doesn't do these commandments and teaches men not to do so,it would have been better if a stone was hung around his neck and thrown into a river".
You have disobeyed Jesus words which he said to preach the good news by saying shut up to me so better come back to this post and apologize if not when judgement day comes only this small sin can make you enter hellfire

ifyken:

Why did you say that, I only say that you should google it
Even Christ says that "whoever doesn't do these commandments and teaches men not to do so,it would have been better if a stone was hung around his neck and thrown into a river".
You have disobeyed Jesus words which he said to preach the good news by saying shut up to me so better come back to this post and apologize if not when judgement day comes only this small sin can make you enter hellfire

Shutup. What the op posted first is on google too. Why is she repeating it here? If you can't answer my questions, waka pass.

Craze don dey worry you

ifyken:

Please any answer that you ask that can be googled should not be asked. If you ask google the answer to your question is there

Are you another moniker for the OP?
He made a claim. Why don't you let him defend his claim or why don't you ask him to post GOOGLE site here so that we can see how right his claims are?

chinasaekpere:
“Believers” pay little attention to facts. They are locked into the addiction of religion.

Why do people believe in god?

I believe the biggest reason is fear.

It is to avoid the existential terror of living in an uncaring, unfeeling, non-sentient universe in which death is final, in which bad things can happen without warning to good people, in which good things can happen to bad people, in which there is no protection and very limited control over our fates. At any moment, things can go wrong: We can fall seriously ill, be attacked and mugged, raped, or killed, hit by a train, etc. This feeling of helplessness is difficult to live with.

Now religion, illogical though it may be, is carefully constructed to protect believers from this harsh reality. It provides the concept of an afterlife to insulate us from the finality of death, and to reassure us that pains and problems of this life will be “made up for” by some glorious fantasy future of eternity in heaven. It helps keep some people in line by threatening them with eternal torture in hell. It provides a theoretically loving “Sky-Daddy” who can do miracles and magically extricate us from trouble. Some people find great comfort in this belief.

Therefore, they are willing to overlook a lot. The self-contradictions in the bible. The need for ‘faith,’ or in other words, the willingness to believe with neither scientific evidence nor proof. The embarrassing fact that, for example, the churches have a long history of repression and oppression of people. When they are totally immersed in the fantasy, they develop a strong dependency upon it. This is called religious faith.

Now, an addict is so wedded to the thing to which they’re addicted that ‘truth’ plays no part in it. Evolution deniers comprise only a fraction of believers, by the way. Not all people who believe in god deny evolution; the pope himself has acknowledged that it is true. But the people without enough sophistication to understand that the bible is not a factual, historical document, but a symbolic and allegorical work, may interpret it literally, and for them, the theory of evolution contradicts the bible. Faced with a choice between the drug of religion and facts, they will choose the drug every time.

Just two simple questions:
1. Can you please explain how chemicals acquired CONSCIOUSNESS?
2. All living things have organs that
i. Take in Energy
ii. Digest and store the energy
iii. Excretes wastes as a result of digestion of energy source
iv. Possess means of replicating themselves
All the above have to be simultaneously present for an organism to be alive. Therefore, did all these systems EVOLVE separately or simultaneously in the first living organisms.

I am willing to learn please, not for any argument: I've been practicing critical thinking lately!

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
We shall soon know who doesn't "know the difference between a scientific theory and a layman’s definition of theory".

How quickly you have turned into a 'prophet' to imagine that I "don’t have a science background".

Fortunately science is exact. So, chin, be SPECIFIC in your answer to the following questions, so that we wouldn't end up seeing that you actually accepted evolution by "faith" RATHER THAN by empiricism which science is based on.
1. How has evolution been "tested" like you put up there?
2. More importantly, what are the "facts by repeatable experiments" that PROVES evolution? What are the "tested experiments" which have produced "consistent results" that are "now fact in science"?

I cannot teach you biology on nairaland.
If you missed in class, I can’t help you here.
If I recommend a biology textbook to you, will you read it?
I cannot come and start teaching someone who doesn’t even know what “theory” means in science.

jmoore:


Ape induced thinking .

Ancient species and all living things have common ancestor, where did the common ancestor come from?

We don’t know where the common ancestor came from and that’s not what evolution entails, it’s another topic entirely but people like you who hardly know that. Evolution only explains the diversity of species and not the origin of life. Abiogenesis and panspermia are the topic in biology that explains that, you don’t know because you have poor background in science or you are a religious fundamentalist.

There is nothing wrong is saying you don’t know, what it’s wrong is making stuffs up. But we are sure that we all have common ancestors, it’s what the information in DNA and fossil record says.

TenQ:

Just two simple questions:
1. Can you please explain how chemicals acquired CONSCIOUSNESS?
2. All living things have organs that
i. Take in Energy
ii. Digest and store the energy
iii. Excretes wastes as a result of digestion of energy source
iv. Possess means of replicating themselves
All the above have to be simultaneously present for an organism to be alive. Therefore, did all these systems EVOLVE separately or simultaneously in the first living organisms.

I am willing to learn please, not for any argument: I've been practicing critical thinking lately!

Your questions are out of point and it’s deliberately looking for loopholes.
Whether or not chemicals have cautiousness, Whether or not God is the maker of cautiousness doesn’t disprove the evidence in DNA and fossil records that evolution is fact.

I’m not arguing that God doesn’t exist, I also believe in God. my argument is that evolution is fact and evolution doesn’t aim to explain how chemicals got cautiousness. It’s distracting question with little substance.

The fact that all living system have similar way of digest molecules and we found the source of this in the DNA is a pointer to the fact that they share common ancestor

ifyken:
...
I don't live irresponsibly, i live by the law and retribution and punishment will be meted out on me if I don't follow them.

If you need the threat of hell fire to be 'good'(good is subjective since muslim terrorist also think they are good when they kill infidels and christain like righteousness89 think they are good by rambling incoherently about end time even on a topic that deals with clouds I say CLOUDS) then you are not good.

If you know that you have committed harmed no one, then you ought not to care about lake of fire.

Secondly, everyone is guilty of knowing THE TRUTH of that which good from that which is wicked and evil exactly as everyone knows not to give their children stones instead of bread.

So that "good is subjective" is just a bag of abiki's shït!.

Anyway this is not the issue.

ifyken:
.
There are evidences to support evolution
which I will not post here since if you are too lazy to open a new tab and google evidences of evolution then you are not worth my time.

Exactly as your Comrados, you have to flee knowing very well that you would be unable to substantiate your Lies when questions are posed.

Surely, this tells us that it is a Lie in addition to the other reasons for creating this Lie.

chinasaekpere:
Your questions are out of point and it’s deliberately looking for loopholes.
Whether or not chemicals have cautiousness, Whether or not God is the maker of cautiousness doesn’t disprove the evidence in DNA and fossil records that evolution is fact.

I’m not arguing that God doesn’t exist, I also believe in God. my argument is that evolution is fact and evolution doesn’t aim to explain how chemicals got cautiousness. It’s distracting question with little substance.

The fact that all living system have similar way of digest molecules and we found the source of this in the DNA is a pointer to the fact that they share common ancestor

Sorry.
I have not argued about God or about creation. I am just baffled by my understanding of elementary Organic and inorganic Chemistry.
How can chemicals through chemical reactions just suddenly acquire consciousness?
Its a valid question!

The second is about the coalition of simultaneous systems that has to work together to produce life. Did the systems occur simultaneously or one after another?
This is also a valid question!

If you don't know the answer, its not a crime. It is an answer I desire to know too.

jmoore:
Clap for yourself.

If Z evolved from B and B evolved from A, if you keep going on and on you will have infinite regression. Does it make logical sense?

BTW, why haven't humans evolved into another creature? Evolution has expired?

You guys claiming critical thinkers but have limited perspective.

Smh

You don’t need critical thinking to know that evolution is fact, you only need proper education and lack of religious indoctrination.
A large number of Christians who are not literalists accept the theory so it’s not impossible that you can be a Christian and still accept scientific facts.
People will lie IQ like yours accept those that do not contradict your faith and reject others.

The major reason why your reject evolution is not because it doesn’t have evidence, it’s because it reveals the lies in Genesis story. You believed the Genesis stories without evidence, so evidence doesn’t matter to you

TenQ:

Sorry.
I have not argued about God or about creation. I am just baffled by my understanding of elementary Organic and inorganic Chemistry.
How can chemicals through chemical reactions just suddenly acquire consciousness?
Its a valid question!

The second is about the coalition of simultaneous systems that has to work together to produce life. Did the systems occur simultaneously or one after another?
This is also a valid question!

If you don't know the answer, its not a crime. It is an answer I desire to know too.

This is the postulate of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, kindly point to which is false there and stop asking bogus questions that are meaningless to this discussion. You just keep confusing yourself because evolution doesn’t aim at explaining what you are talking about.

1) Individuals within species are variable;

2) Some of these variations are passed on to offspring;
3) In every generation, more offspring are produced than can survive; and
4) The survival and reproduction of individuals are not random; the individuals who survive and go on to reproduce the most are those with the most favorable variation, and they are naturally selected.

sagenaija:
[size=8pt][/size]
Even Science calls it a "THEORY".
What does that tell you?

Almost immediately after posting this, you and a number of others on the thread have ALREADY VEERED OFF from 'evolution' into some other TOTALLY UNRELATED issues.

If your brains work like this, how do you expect to appreciate the right answers to your questions?

You are scientifically illiterate if you don’t know that all scientific theories have one or two facts in them.
If it doesn’t explain a fact then it can’t be a theory in science.

TenQ:

Just two simple questions:
1. Can you please explain how chemicals acquired CONSCIOUSNESS?
2. All living things have organs that
i. Take in Energy
ii. Digest and store the energy
iii. Excretes wastes as a result of digestion of energy source
iv. Possess means of replicating themselves
All the above have to be simultaneously present for an organism to be alive. Therefore, did all these systems EVOLVE separately or simultaneously in the first living organisms.

I am willing to learn please, not for any argument: I've been practicing critical thinking lately!

Your number 2 point goes further to present the evidence that all species have common origin.

All living-things are the same at the molecular level. They have the same nucleic acid backbone and similar form of metabolism which is directed by the instructions in the DNA.
If you take a “glucose kinase” enzyme, (one of the key enzymes for the metabolism of glucose) from a bacteria and compare it to that from Humans, you will still see similarities in their amino acid sequences. If you go further to study their DNA sequence, you will find similarities in their nuclear bases, there’s no other logical way to explain that unless in the light of evolution but for someone who believes in magic, he may want to invoke a spiritual being into it.

chinasaekpere:


This is the postulate of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, kindly point to which is false there and stop asking bogus questions that are meaningless to this discussion. You just keep confusing yourself because evolution doesn’t aim at explaining what you are talking about.

1) Individuals within species are variable;

2) Some of these variations are passed on to offspring;
3) In every generation, more offspring are produced than can survive; and
4) The survival and reproduction of individuals are not random; the individuals who survive and go on to reproduce the most are those with the most favorable variation, and they are naturally selected.

You seem to assume that I am fighting you but NO.
Darwin's theory of evolution begins with existence of SPECIES. I am asking about how the first specie came to existence from chemical reactions as it seems that there are primarily five or seven routes of evolution; those that led to the evolutions of animal, plant, fungi, protist and monera.

Workch:
Your number 2 point goes further to present the evidence that all species have common origin.

All living-things are the same at the molecular level. They have the same nucleic acid backbone and similar form of metabolism which is directed by the instructions in the DNA.
If you take a “glucose kinase” enzyme, (one of the key enzymes for the metabolism of glucose) from a bacteria and compare it to that from Humans, you will still see similarities in their amino acid sequences. If you go further to study their DNA sequence, you will find similarities in their nuclear bases, there’s no other logical way to explain that unless in the light of evolution but for someone who believes in magic, he may want to invoke a spiritual being into it.

There is no doubt that ALL living things have a common origin and source.

My question is :
Taking a bacteria for example, it consists of some basic minimum number of interworking systems of which if just one is missen, the bacteria cannot be alive. Its just like a car must have a minimum number of interwoking systems for it to be a vehicle wheels, engines, steering, transmission etc if just one component is missen, it cannot be a car.

Darwin's theory of evolution starts with SPECIES but my question is about how the species came into existence from simple chemical reactions

TenQ:

Just two simple questions:
1. Can you please explain how chemicals acquired CONSCIOUSNESS?
2. All living things have organs that
i. Take in Energy
ii. Digest and store the energy
iii. Excretes wastes as a result of digestion of energy source
iv. Possess means of replicating themselves
All the above have to be simultaneously present for an organism to be alive. Therefore, did all these systems EVOLVE separately or simultaneously in the first living organisms.

I am willing to learn please, not for any argument: I've been practicing critical thinking lately!

It is NOW CLEAR that chinasaekpere, Workch and their friends on this thread are not here to reason with others.

First, he started out by accusing people of paying "little attention to facts". When now asked to PROVIDE FACTS about his stance on evolution he resorts to labelling, deflection tactics and maligning.

ORIGINALLY, Darwin's theory emphasised how SPECIES came about. It was not just about having warts on your skin or pimples. The two major focus were on CHANCE and TIME as instrumental factors. Evolutionists have to talk about millions and billions of years because, other than linking evolutionary phenomena to deductions from OBSERVATIONS, no concrete evidence or experiments can support or prove evolution.

That is why today, proponents end up running to the cellular level to want to prove evolution. In so doing they try to avoid how such changes affect organisms to produce CHANGE in life-forms.

Unlike other scientific studies where you have REPLICABLE experiments to support or prove a position, NONE of that exists for evolution. That is the PLAIN TRUTH why these guys here will rather dance round issues, refer people to Google or resort to other tactics than be upfront with their 'facts' if any.

At the end of the day, they believe in evolution by simply accepting it, not based on any rational or empirical basis but on the same basis they accuse others of accepting their religion - FAITH.

They have NO PROOF to show how an organism has evolved from a previous one. If they did they will give us EXPERIMENTS that have been made to show this. Maybe they should start first by giving us their definition of EVOLUTION. But then, that itself might even be an uphill task for them.

TenQ:

There is no doubt that ALL living things have a common origin and source.

My question is :
Taking a bacteria for example, it consists of some basic minimum number of interworking systems of which if just one is missen, the bacteria cannot be alive. Its just like a car must have a minimum number of interwoking systems for it to be a vehicle tires, engines, steering, transmission etc if just one component is missen, it cannot be a car.

Darwin's theory of evolution starts with SPECIES but my question is about how the species came into existence from simple chemical reactions

You are making argument from irreducible complexity of intelligent design.
It’s false that if you remove one part of a bacteria organelle that it must stop functioning.
If one part of an organelle is removed naturally, it either stop functioning, acts as a vestigial organelle or served another function.

This argument you are using was put forward by a controversial Colleuge of mine called Michael Behe and he use the flagellum of a bacteria to make his points. He has been disproven by with evidence that a bacteria flagellum is not irreducibly complex, if the motor of a flagellum is removed, it could still serve as an organelle for insemination of toxins and other proteins as seen many bacteria.

The matter of irreducible complexity is also false in terms of vestigial organs.
If I remove your appendix, you will still function properly.
If I remove your tonsils, you will still function properly.
If u remove Your coccyx, you will function properly. So what’s the irreducible complexity in this?

So the equivalence with a car part is false and doesn’t work like that in nature. Cars do not adapt to changing environment conditions like living cells. It’s a false equivalence fallacy

TenQ:

There is no doubt that ALL living things have a common origin and source.

My question is :
Taking a bacteria for example, it consists of some basic minimum number of interworking systems of which if just one is missen, the bacteria cannot be alive. Its just like a car must have a minimum number of interwoking systems for it to be a vehicle wheels, engines, steering, transmission etc if just one component is missen, it cannot be a car.

Darwin's theory of evolution starts with SPECIES but my question is about how the species came into existence from simple chemical reactions

But asking how species came into existence is not a topic in evolution.

That’s like another topic entirely and science doesn’t have that answer. What we are sure about is that evolution happened and it’s still happened.
We don’t know for sure how the first species came and evolution is not the topic to discusss that and this thread doesn’t aim at discussing that either.

sagenaija:
It is NOW CLEAR that chinasaekpere, Workch and their friends on this thread are not here to reason with others.

First, he started out by accusing people of paying "little attention to facts". When now asked to PROVIDE FACTS about his stance on evolution he resorts to labelling, deflection tactics and maligning.

ORIGINALLY, Darwin's theory emphasised how SPECIES came about. It was not just about having warts on your skin or pimples. The two major focus were on CHANCE and TIME as instrumental factors. Evolutionists have to talk about millions and billions of years because, other than linking evolutionary phenomena to deductions from OBSERVATIONS, no concrete evidence or experiments can support or prove evolution.

That is why today, proponents end up running to the cellular level to want to prove evolution. In so doing they try to avoid how such changes affect organisms to produce CHANGE in life-forms.

Unlike other scientific studies where you have REPLICABLE experiments to support or prove a position, NONE of that exists for evolution. That is the PLAIN TRUTH why these guys here will rather dance round issues, refer people to Google or resort to other tactics than be upfront with their 'facts' if any.

At the end of the day, they believe in evolution by simply accepting it, not based on any rational or empirical basis but on the same basis they accuse others of accepting their religion - FAITH.

They have NO PROOF to show how an organism has evolved from a previous one. If they did they will give us EXPERIMENTS that have been made to show this. Maybe they should start first by giving us their definition of EVOLUTION. But then, that itself might even be an uphill task for them.

You don’t know science dude.

Correct yourself on the theory blunder and we will teach you the science you should have learnt in secondary school.

You can’t be arrogant in ignorance and still expect that we teach you.

Theories are facts in science and that’s why it is.

TenQ:

You seem to assume that I am fighting you but NO.
Darwin's theory of evolution begins with existence of SPECIES. I am asking about how the first specie came to existence from chemical reactions as it seems that there are primarily five or seven routes of evolution; those that led to the evolutions of animal, plant, fungi, protist and monera.

Evolution is not a topic that aims to explain how the first specie came to be.
That's like creating another topic entirely. This topic is meant to discuss evolution of specie and not the origin of life

Workch:
You don’t know science dude.

Correct yourself on the theory blunder and we will teach you the science you should have learnt in secondary school.

You can’t be arrogant in ignorance and still expect that we teach you.

Theories are facts in science and that’s why it is.

Just present facts man!, just present FACTS!
Don't attack the man.
The thread is about evolution. I have presented here more about evolution and Darwin than any of you.