₦airaland Forum

Fornication and adultery is only wrong when lying and cheating is involved. I believe humans are naturally polygamous (both men and women), but we are extremely pretentious, so we hold ourselves up to stupid ideals. My wife gets my full, unqualified consent to seek sexual pleasure elsewhere, if I'm ever unable to satisfy her carnal needs. This way, she'll never have to cheat or lie to me. Likewise, if I ever feel sexual attraction towards another woman, I'll also be upfront with my wife. When consent is established between all parties involved, then it's a free world.

shadeyinka:
In other words, God should condense to a Physical verifiable form, THEN, you will believe.

No no no no NO sir! It's not right, what you've done. I prefer you don't put words in my mouth in order to make your point. I never said such a thing. If you read my post again, all I said was "unmistakable signature". If god condenses to a physical form that is mistakable for something else, then god will be mistaken for something else. Please ask for clarification before misinterpreting my statement.

Interestingly, God gave you a conscience to know the right from wrong. To love rather than to hate. To help others rather than to exploit them. Ever seen children at play? They are plain and simple: with no prejudice.

This claim is lacking in evidence!

Humans naturally adopt a god (whether rightly or wrongly). It takes a conscious choice to arrive at the conclusion that God doesn't exist. In other words, our will has the power to override our God given instinct of the spirit.

This has been demonstrated not to be true. Rilwayne001 made a similar claim before, and I quoted the relevant research that showed otherwise in his thread on whether we are born atheists.

The human state can be compared with that of a chicken who lost her instinct to brood on her eggs. As you know, this happens when chickens are scientifically bred. Christians have always maintained that through Satan, mans spiritual nature was compromised.

Again! Don't attribute knowledge to me, which I haven't claimed to have.

fault isn't God's that we cannot readily perceive Him. He didn't create us that way.

Maybe you should ask your bible whose fault it is that satan exists.

I think what you have described is still selection rather than evolution.

I think the theory is specifically named Evolution by natural SELECTION. Your attempt to make this false distinction seems frivolous to me.

In selection, interbreeding is still very possible. Like, imagine a world in another 1000 years of ice age where people with hypertrichosis are the only survivors. You can pick any one of them and mate them with any normal human and they will reproduce. However, in the case of evolution, reproduction is almost impossible. Only few instances of interspecies cross reproductions are known.

And are these few cases a result of selection or intelligent design?

I don't know if any human -ape crossbreed had ever been documented despite the claim that we are relatives.

Nor do I! Yet, I fail to see your point. Given enough genetic drift in sexually differentiated species, then chromosomes will not be able to pair anymore. In such a case, crossbreeding becomes impossible. I don't see how this falsifies the theory of evolution.

I thought you were a physicist?
What's yu doin with evolusion!

Technically, every natural science (biology and chemistry included) is a branch of Physics. But yes, Biology isn't my core area of competence. However, I do have especial interest in both primate and cetacea biology! I'm a self-taught amateur with access to the world's biggest repository of knowledge (the internet and academic journals), what excuse have I got not to learn?

Let me ask you the same question: What are you doing with evolution?

Empiree:
AgentOfAllah, tintingz

Subhanallah!!!

You Are poking fun of sacredness. Even if i should take your word for you that you asked Allah for guidance, your exhibition here shows you did not have ikhlas in your quest. Allah hovers btw man and his heart. He sees no sincerity in your heart, hence the reason you end up this way. I seek Allah's help.

---

I wouldn't expect you to come to a different conclusion. Tag people as fake Muslims when you cannot handle their truths...no surprises there! You need not take my word for it! Feel free to go one step a further by tagging me a liar, after all, you're Allah's mouthpiece, aren't you?

“If you ask them (about this), they declare: ‘We were only talking idly and joking.’ Say: ‘Was it at Allah, and His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and His Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) that you were mocking? Make no excuse; you have disbelieved after you had believed. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others amongst you because they were Mujrimoon (disbelievers, polytheists, sinners, criminals, etc.)” [at-Tawbah 9:65-66].

---

To be honest, I wasn't joking when I said I am murtadh and kufar! Now you can as well add mujrimoon to the list of things that I am.

shadeyinka:
I think Butterflyl1on did an excellent job of using scientific basis to debunk evolution in favour of intelligent design.

I didn't fully read butterfly's entry, but I think I got the main gist of it. Human limbs grow differently than frog limbs, therefore intelligent design! If there's anything I missed, please point me to it.
I wouldn't call that an excellent rebuttal of evolution simply because evolution acknowledges and studies the variations in different species, it doesn't deny them! As such, I didn't deem it necessary to expend precious effort on such a lengthy epistle that proceeds from a flawed premise.

I will comment on you saying that "God is a Stop Gap hypothesis".

1. If (for the sake of this discussion) God were to exist AND he made the Atoms, Molecules and the chemical reactions that produced DNA and living cells, THEN God cannot be made from Atoms and Molecules. If this same God made the laws that govern everything, then he cannot be subject to those laws.

Fair assessment!

If the assumption above is true, thenGod cannot be verified by science.

If that god is sentient and wishes to be discovered, I don't see why its existence cannot be verified by science. All it would take is to put an unmistakable signature in every biological cell or something. But if that god wishes not to be discovered, I entirely agree! But in this case, there's no way of knowing the difference between a god that doesn't want to be discovered and a nonexistent one.

Its like let's say humans made a super robot with a superior Artificial Intelligence which made the robots self aware. Suppose all humans relocated to another planet leaving only these robots on earth. If they were somehow told that they were created by humans (who now live in a yonder pplanet), there argument will be like:

-how does the operating system of man operate. Is the OS designed for 64bit microprocessor or 128bit. Is mans brain duo core or quad core.
-Is there body made of silicone? What kind of metal is used as their skeleton.
-Do they use Li-Ion Batteries or Activated Carbon-Lead Oxide storage cells

Etc.

They will ask the wrong questions hence get wrong answers.

Fantastic example! Those robots will be apt to ask such questions. If humans then wish to prove definitively, that they created the robots, they can send unmistakable EM signals demonstrating how they created sentient robots. Humans should also answer the questions of these robots, demonstrating that we are nothing like them, not leaving them to guess what the characteristics of humans are. If we fail to do so, the robots aren't to blame for wrong guesses. I mean, I don't know about other humans, but if these sentient robots guess wrong, I will not be putting them on a space craft to the sun as punishment for expressing scepticism about my existence, since that scepticism stems from my failings in the first place.

2. Let's assume that history doesn't exist about Automobiles. The conclusion the science will come to when they see the progression between Monocycles, Bicycles, Motorcycles, Tricycles, Cars, Lorries and Trailers is to assume evolution not intelligent design from the same pool of information.

I don't think science can come to a conclusion about anything without existing history. At any rate, this is false equivalence, because automobiles aren't self-replicating living things. Usually, when scientists discover artificial contraptions without recorded history, they attribute them to ancient civilizations. Some examples are Nok sculptures, Terracotta arts, Stonehenge and many of the Paleolithic tools on record. My guess is that they would do the same if they discovered automobiles without history.

In case of biology, no trace of evolution can be seen (no history) hence they have to come up with an evidence that precludes designer; simply because accommodating a designer in science is no more science.

This is patently false! There are many traces of evolution. I'm too lazy to provide them, but I swear, you'll find them if you just took a second to search on Google.

3. The little I know about mutations is that they seldom produce better organism. Usually, a little change in an aspect of DNA produces hydrous monsters who usually do not survive.

You are right! In fact, we all have an average of 60 new mutations passed to us from our parents, and they seldom have any effect at all. Most species (>99%) eventually just die out, but a handful that experience beneficial mutations may yet live to experience the next epoch. Imagine we ran out of fuel sources and means to generate energy, and a new ice age commences. Then people with hypertrichosis (who we ordinarily wouldn't consider to be normal humans) would likely be better adapted to the new environment, and it might not be long before humans look like hairy apes again. This is how evolution works.

This means that there seems to be a mechanism that prevents evolution of a species into another. Yes, natural selection may bring about qualities or characteristics that are suited to a particular environment but not evolution.

There is no mechanism that prevents speciation. If you stopped thinking of species as discrete points on the biological tree of life, and instead see them as a continuum, then you'll see how adaptation to particular environments is exactly what is meant by evolution.

Evolution suggests progressive beneficial mutations which is not found in nature.

This is not how evolution works! Evolution suggests that nature is mostly a destructive force, not a constructive one. Like I mentioned, most mutations are irrelevant errors in genetic information, but given millions of trials, there's always bound to be that one member of a specie that develops beneficial mutations that might just prove helpful during nature's next wave of destruction. When that happens, all others die, but that lucky basterd and its offspring survive!

I hope this clarifies my position.

tintingz:
You're also an apostate, kafir.

I have given up on religion, I've realize that they are all man-made and the funniest thing was, i used to pray day and night not to leave this "precious" religion but I guess Allah couldn't prevent that and shaitan took over.

I recall always praying to Allah to take my life if the day comes when I start to lose my faith. I guess Allah had other plans for me! I'm now murtadh katheer and kufar Alakbar!

tintingz:
My rationality is to question everything, why won't I question the supernatural? How does Satan enter people's mouth when they yawn? Or pee pee in ones ear? How does Muhammed(SA) rode on flying horse to the sky but when told that Greek Gods rode on flying horse it will be rejected? Where did Adam and Eve lived, what's their skin color? How did we populated the earth from these two people? Why was Allah more active in ancient middle east? And many more questions that can't even be answered rationally.

I respect you bro, because I see where you're coming from. I've been there before. You remind me of me 8 years ago. The people trying to prevent you from asking these questions do not understand that intellectual honesty is not a switch that you can turn on and off at your whim. Once you have it, it isn't going anywhere. Keep asking and keep seeking. You'll eventually come to your own truth, not that which others wish to impose on you.

vaxx:
normal scientific method of carrying out research...get a test sample and work on it...

Great start!

You suggest the best hypothesis (intelligence guess) and you work on it....in a case of complexity ....you have to make a guess on what is really complex. ....for example a part of human body like brain is complex enough....let me suggest an hypothesis on the complexity of human brain that science can work on...consciousness and unconscious of the brain....what is the cause...

Your question then is: Why is the human brain complex? That's a brilliant question. Your hypothesis is that it is a product of complex design. Your hypothesis seems reasonable, but fails on testability (which was what I asked for). Who is this designer? What is the process of design? Have you ever witnessed the design process of this designer?
I have an alternative hypothesis: Evolution. As it turns out, existing evidence demonstrates that the human brain was not always this complex, but grew more and more so through the process of natural selection. Oh, and did I mention the existence of evidence for this hypothesis?
Now tell me, which of the two hypotheses is the more probable?

Yes inability of human capacity to produce or have authority on the complexity of the design is the logic behind complex design raised by creationist ..if you belive the laws of nature can't be change to the desire of human.. Why don't you also accept this law was pre- design to be so by a being more intelligent than human .....if human has capacity over the complexity, then it is no more complex anymore...it can be reproduce, replicate and human can have authority over them... so far this natural phenomenon is still beyond human capacity... Then it is complex indeed...

Simple: I don't accept that these laws were designed because there is yet no evidence to support such a claim.

Evolution theory only provide evidence on how mammals evolute from the initial stage to the current stage....which can still be debated scientifically...

Evolution doesn't provide evidence for anything, it explains existing evidence. And the weight of existing evidence suggests that this explanation is accurate.

Evolution theory do not address if human will still evolute again

According to the theory, only extinct species stop evoluting (I like your coinage). Presently, humans are of least concern on the extinction chart, so our evolution journey yet continues.

it does not address the topic I posted......and more....

In my first post, I also gave you a sound reason why evolution does not need to give you a biography of our shared common ancestors with monkeys.
To sum it up, I argued that you are unable to produce the biography of the common ancestors you share with your 5th cousin. So please, give direct answers to the following questions:

(1) Do you reject the idea that you share common ancestors with your 5th cousin?

(2) If DNA tests suggest that you do, do you also reject the results?

(3) If your answer is no to the above questions, why do you reject the idea that we share common ancestors with monkeys?

vaxx:
i insert the idea of nothingness into the topic becuse the concept of overwhelming design can't be overlook... ... It must surely come from somewhere ...Even Paul admit ... The evidence use by the creationist to back up the complex designes is both observable and testable and that make it scientific....what make it complex here is the ability to produce similarities....

How do you test complex design?

Will science be able to produce a versions of the universe like ours, what about mammals (biological system ),ecosystem like ours and so many more....if this version can be produce using scientific method.... I am ready to consider the concept of complex design baseless.....

So reproducibility by human endeavour is your criteria for adjudging something to be complex design? If so, answer me these questions: Do you understand that the laws of nature are immutable to the whims of humans? Why do you think human ingenuity is a legitimate criteria by which to judge the creative prowess of natural processes?

One very interesting thing here is.... Evolution theory do not discredit the concept of complex design....

Then what does evolution do?

vaxx:
i insert the idea of nothingness into the topic becuse an overwhelming design can't be overlook... Even Paul admit ... The evidence of complex designer is both observable and testable and hence make it scientific....the complex here is the ability to produce similarities....


example A universe like ours
A mammals biological system
An ecosystem like ours and so many more....

Vaxx could you rephrase this post? I really don't understand what you intended to write here.

vaxx:
evidence of creationist isn't only logical it also has a science base... I even suggest creationist and evolutionist should work together ...the see hole that evolutionist could not see and they point it to them not to ignore the basic scientific law... An authority on science a physician paul Davies said, “The appearance of design is overwhelming.”

Have you read Paul Davies' works? I recommend "God and the New Physics" it's a fascinating read. Anyway, read this article titled: "Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it", written by Paul Davies, to understand that remark in its proper context.

Science is perfectly capable of pointing out the difficulties in its own theories. I'm even willing to wager with you that every single thing creationists quote as some kind flaw they discovered with scientific theories are things the very scientists who developed the theories highlighted themselves. It is just as important to highlight your shortcomings in science as it is to report on your successes. This gives future scientists new interesting questions to explore, which is why scientific discovery never ceases.

Why the complex design is logical...

logic has it that nothing produces nothing. When you test nothing like zero… no energy,, no air othing comes from it. However, if you stick something into nothing and something comes out of it then it is solely because of the something that is introduced to the nothing. This is logical.

Nothing is not even testable base on science method

You're conflating two different things here! The notion of nothingness and the idea of complexity. "Complex design" is not a counterpoint to "nothingness". "Somethingness" is the counterpoint to "nothingness". No one I know of, argues that something came out of nothing. That is indeed, a tenuous argument, simply because no one knows what "nothing" truly means. Even space vacuum isn't nothing, and as far as we know, zero energy has never been measured anywhere.
As for "complex design", that's just a forced concept which requires you to first assume the object of examination was designed. Such an assumption is uncalled for in the absence of evidence.

vaxx:
the colourless nature of both object ....

Colourless (col·or·less): Without colour

You cannot say two things which are colourless have the same colour, let alone that one derives its colour from another. That's just abuse of logic.

vaxx:
on this case ... Can we both agree that evolution theory and creationist ideology still need more evidence of truth .....before we can finally give a conclusion..... ?

I don't think we can agree on that. Evolution is supported by a staggering body of evidence. Creationism is supported by staggering speculations.

vaxx:
if that is the case... My friend logical evidence of water taken its colour from sky hasn't been prove wrong...

What colour?

vaxx:
I differ with you..... your conclusion can only be reliable if there is empirical evidence that has proven the premises not to be true but setting aside subjective and physical evidence which is the premises we have at hand logic can be used to explain the truth...

Any conclusion that derives from a speculative premise is itself, a speculation. Period!

logic is a taught experiment that use the mind to recognize the processes of , the cause and effect of any idea to verify truth. Logic do not only explain truth it also validate it.....it is the duty of science to work with idea ,prediction of data or any testable theory likewise it is the duty of logic to occasionally tell science to adjust its perspective....

Surely, you're not suggesting that logic, whatever its premise, takes preponderance over empirical observations?

Taught experiment is part of work design for any good scientists to carry out research....

Therefore the logics of design creature can't be thrown into garbage because science has not been able to prove the premises to be false.... Yes is questionable just like the topic at hand... evolution theory....

Most religion can logically validate the truthfulness of their believe ...religion base their belive with knowledge ,faith and confidence... To say is a blind base will be wrong


Design complexity isn't only logical it also has a science Base.. Design arguments are empirical arguments for the existence of God. These arguments do not only show the complexity in the design it also shows the goals and purpose of the design..

The argument for design isn't logical/observational, it is resigned speculation. "Oh it looks complex, therefore design!" I fail to see the logic in that.

What about sky? Will you not say the same thing about sky? Remember sky isn't Always blue...

Yes, the sky also scatters light, so only appears blue when there is an abundance of blue light around (such as from the sun). Otherwise, yes! The sky is also colourless like water.

butterflyl1on:
There is no such thing as vestigial organs as this is not admissible in science. What was said to be "useless" today can be discovered to have a function tomorrow. We once had about 180 vestigial organ list and today we have about 4 or 5 and the list keeps shrinking as their functions are finally discovered.

This vestigial organ assumption uses as an assumption the claim that an organ has no function. There is no way in which this negative assertion can be arrived at in a scientific manner. What I mean is that one can't prove that something does not exist for example, such a case like this, a certain function, since of course if it does not exist one cannot observe it, and therefore one can say nothing about it based on science.

As it is today, the vestigial organ claim has as an assumption, either a statement of ignorance such as, I couldn’t identify the function, or a scientifically invalid claim such as, it does not have a function. This kind of claim isnt scientifically valid, and isn't admissible in observational or experimental science.

I appreciate the premise upon which your scepticism rests. In summary, you assert that our ignorance of the function of an organ is not a reason to declare it vestigial. In other words, the absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence. On this note, I absolutely agree with you, so does the theory of evolution! However, your conclusion is spurious. You hastily declare it impossible to show that vestigial organs exist because by your estimation, evolution qualifies an organ as vestigial from ignorance. Your reasoning is that it is impossible to make a negative claim about the obsolescence of an organ.

That conclusion is demonstrably false, and here's why:
(1) If it can be shown that organs exist which have specific, well defined functions.
(2) If it can further be shown that all or parts of such organs exist in other species, but fail to carry out these well defined functions.
(3) Then this constitutes a negative proof of said function; thus the organ's vestigiality.

The question then must be, does such an organ exist? And the answer is yes! Most def!!

I mentioned the blind mole rat before, so let's examine the eye development of the blind mole rat (spalax), shall we? Thankfully, this subject is thoroughly studied, so there is good material at our disposal.

Sanyal et al.¹ detailed the eye development of an embryo spalax in the abstract of their publication as follows:

"In the early embryos the presumptive eye regions--the epithelium, lens vesicle, and optic cup--appear initially normal. As development progresses, the iris-ciliary body complex originates prematurely from the margin of the optic cup and shows a very rapid and massive growth. This pigment-laden tissue mass remains attached to the corneal stroma, obliterates the anterior chamber, and prevents the formation of the corneal endothelium and Descemet's membrane. In the developing lens the elongation of the lens fibers leads to the formation of a rudimentary lens nucleus that becomes disorganized and vacuolated and eventually also becomes vascularized. The optic fissure fails to close, the eyes remain colobomatous, and the optic disc appears atrophic."

Here, we can understand that at the initial stage of development, the everything seems to be forming normally, then the iris-ciliary, responsible for growing the iris (a heavily pigmented muscle that specifically controls light intake for vision, overgrows, thereby destroying the anterior chamber and inhibiting the growth of corneal endothelium (cells responsible for maintaining optical transparency of the eye). Furthermore, a rudimentary lens nucleous forms, but is unable to fully develop because it becomes disorganised.

Now, we know that
(a) A rudimentary form of lens exists, but does not collect light
(b) The iris muscle exists, but fails to regulate light intake
(c) The optic cup exists, but lacks corneal endothelium for visual transparency.

This tells us that organs which are specifically adapted for vision exist in the spalax, but fail to perform the functions for which they are specifically adapted. Such organs are thus, said to be vestigial.

[1] Sanyal, S.; Jansen, H. G.; de Grip, W. J.; Nevo, E.; de Jong, W. W., The eye of the blind mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi. Rudiment with hidden function? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1990, 31 (7), 1398-404.

dalaman:
The clear and full position of the common ancestor hasn't even been established as the OP has stated.

But, as I showed in my first response, the absence of this information is of no more consequence to the claim of the theory than the absence of clear and full information about your great-great-great-great grandfather is, regarding the truth of his existence. Are we then to deny the relationship you have with your 5th cousin because we do not know the full nature of your common ancestor? What if DNA tests establish this link? Should we still deny it?

What exactly is the nature of the common ancestor we as humans share with chimps for example?

Again, is it possible to establish, exactly, the nature of traits you and your 5th cousin share with your common ancestor? The exact nature can never be known, but incomplete sketches can be made based on the many traits we still have in common with chimps. There's only one scientific theory that can explain many of the fantastical coincidences we find in the diverse expression of species. Do you know about vestigial organs? How do you explain the fact that some species, like the blind mole with eye spots, have useless body parts?

dalaman:
Macro evolution for example. The OP and Butterflylion havr presented some of the problems I have with evolution here which to me are fallacies.

So when you say macro evolution, is it that you find it implausible that two seemingly distinct species may have shared common ancestors?

vaxx:
they are two basic method of truth verification... Science and logical reasoning... Religion rely heavily on logic rather than science....

You're wrong! Logic is a tool merely used to formulate conclusions about a set of predefined premises. If the premise is objectionable, then logic can never provide the truth. Science on the other hand, seeks to establish empirical premises upon which logic can rely to come to truthful conclusions. Logic can be applied to any premise. The question is, how reliable is that premise?

Therefore you can't also throw religious evidence of truth away...

You can if the premises prove questionable.

The method of truth verification in religion is not compatible with science but it does not violate logic and reasoning... Must of the claims of religion can be subjected to critical thinking and hence make sense logically...

This claim is objectively false! Religion is hopelessly dependent on blind faith, which is the direct antithesis of critical thinking.

If the religious folks can argue logically that there is God base on the complexity in the design ....I think it is reasonable and cannot be totally throw into the garbage even If it violate science... For example it is proven scientifically that whale sings but no one can explain what it sings about...which can be debated logically..........my friend once logically prove it to me that water took its colour from the sky..... No scientific evidence that support it.... But by mere observation it can be true...

But attributing complexity to god is not a logical argument, it is resignation. Water is transparent, hence does not take its colour from anything. It can however, sometimes scatter, reflect or transmit light from other things around which may give the apparition of colour. But make no mistake, water has no colour! Hence, whatever your friend's logic is, it is wrong.

With your last paragraph.... If I can understand you.... Sea water and salty water can both contain an electric fish even though they are different in nature.... You can explain better......

My last paragraph was just to demonstrate that common ancestry is not the same as common designer.

dalaman:
I've tried to study evolution for years but I just can not understand it. It is just full of speculation, wild guesses and assumptions for me to take it seriously.

Some part of it makes sense though but as a whole it's riddled with so many fallacies and nonsense.

Dalaman, I'm interested to know what about the theory of evolution is "riddled with so many fallacies and nonsense". I'm not a biologists, myself, but what I understand about the theory of evolution makes it compelling enough for me to accept. It may very well be that I have a shallow foundation on the subject.

adenl:
As you may already know, many matters of faith and the paranormal cannot be scientifically proven, only believed or speculated upon. To accept my explanation, you have to believe the same premises as I do. Peace be unto you.

Fair enough!
Then it is quite probable too, that nothing happens. Perhaps, the end really is the end. Peace be unto you too

adenl:
No, but a soul is generally believed to become a spirit when it leaves the body. I believe it's what quickens a body.

Okay. Do you believe it because it is "generally believed" or because it is fact? Or are you conflating general belief with fact?

vaxx:
brilliant approach....I already give kudos to scientist for been able trace who are my ancestors... a complicated problem for me a non scientist...

so far it is the best explanation scientist can give .....applicable to the religious folks ....the best explanation for the designer of the universe is God and nothing. more....... I think science needs to also agree with this concept....because best explanation do not need an explanation due to an infinite regression of explanation which will render the whole purpose of science and philosophical thinking useless...

Science generally doesn't adopt superfluous propositions, as such, does not need to agree with the concept of god. God is a stop-gap hypothesis, not a credible scientific discovery!

for example it is an established theory that living organism are made up of cells...no new evidence is likely to change this scientific verified evidence...

New evidence cannot change this observation. It has been incontrovertibly shown to be so.

God design the universe that is the best explanation.... nothing more....

This is not an explanation, it's a claim!

I also note one thing if science agree we are both from one common ancestor , is it not also suggesting we are from the same common designer....

No, having a common ancestor is not the same as having a common designer. In fact, there are many designers in nature. They include temperature, pressure, resource availability, humidity and so on. These factors can design identical twins with the same parents so that they look nothing alike.

ScienceWatch:
You overload Nairaland with 90% of the boring illogical crap that you posted. I clearly can see you are not a respecter of Authority AgentOfAllah. Is the holy prophet Mohammed not your authority figure ?

Or are you living like an unhinged gate ?

Muhammed? Nah! I rather live like an unhinged gate, mate. You must try it sometime!

vaxx:
who are this common ancestors that is both share by human and apes? any biography about them?

if there is common ancestors as claim by scientist... where do they also evolute from? who is their ancestors?

OP, while these are fantastic questions, ones whose answers are still subject to rigorous explorations and pursuits, the questions themselves have no bearing on the veracity of the theory of evolution. By this, I mean it's not the answers to these questions whence the theory presently draws its strength, so an absence of answers does not falsify the theory. To clearly understand why, you have to study the simple family tree chart below, and follow my reasoning carefully.
[img]https://metrouk2.files./2014/10/family.png[/img]

Now, OP, let us agree for the sake of argument, that you have a 3rd cousin. Would it be reasonable to formulate the "Vaxx theory of familial evolution", which states that Vaxx and his 3rd cousin have common ancestors in their great-great-grandparents? If you think this is reasonable, then surely, you must know who your great-great grandparents are? You very well may! But what happens when we extend the theory to your 5th cousin and great⁴ grandparents, or your 10th cousin and great⁹ grandparents, hmmm?

So now Vaxx, can you tell me who your great⁹ grandparents were? Any biography about them? their occupation, where they lived? Their skin complexions, whether they had any congenital diseases? Can you answer these questions? Next, can you tell me who gave birth to you great⁹ grandparents?

I am willing to bet you cannot answer these questions with any degree of accuracy. So my next question is, does the fact that you cannot answer these questions belie the Vaxx theory of familial evolution?? Does this mean you do not share a common ancestor with your 10th, 5th, or 11th cousins?
Now, assuming they do not carry the same family name as you, is there another way we can tell that these people are your cousins? Absolutely! It's called DNA profiling.

Now, you tell me Vaxx, if DNA can tell you that you share a common ancestor with your 10th cousins, why do you think it is wrong when it suggests that we share common ancestors with our 1,000th or 10,000th cousins? Or else, why do you think it is necessary to know the biographies of these common ancestors to accept that they really existed?

I am aware the problem the questions pose.. it will end in infinite regression of explanation...


but can anybody make attempt ... everyone is invited.....

Vaxx, you are right that no one can definitively answer that particular question of who the common ancestors of the common ancestors were, but make no mistake, it doesn't pose any problems for the theory of evolution.

Argumentum ad Verecundiam

ScienceWatch:
You are fearful of truth presented by Christians. Now you are fearful of truth presented by a renowned Atheist scientist.

Oh my dear friend, you're hopelessly and haplessly always in consort with authority figures. Would that you knew: a respecter of science must NOT and CANNOT be a respecter of authority. Such a disposition is violently antithetical to the very foundations upon which science is built. In science, logical reasoning and incontrovertible observations are the only authorities. So if you think, for a moment, that stamping the names of respected scientists on illogical ideas - even if those ideas are really theirs - will earn such ideas credibility, then you mistake science for religion.

adenl:
I believe our soul leaves our body and enters another body.

Source:
http://answermethis.xyz/?qa=5/what-happens-when-we-die

Ever seen a soul, op?

OP, you might either be prone to hallucinations or you're, sorry to say, schizophrenic. You should visit a psychiatrist to properly diagnose your symptoms.

shaybebaby:
But often it's not. Those who genuinely need it are often lost and invisible.
If and when I do any acts of kindness, all I ask is that it is paid forward.

You are a balanced person. Sadly, not everybody shares your aptitude for kindness or is as psychologically stable as you are.

Hope you had a good weekend and took a break from your journals.

I did have a good weekend! I had nice break from everything. Albeit a short lived one

Proudgorgeousga:
I don't know why I found this to be very funny

Funny is one of the more admirable, yet unintended qualities of arrogant dimwits.

hopefulLandlord:
I admire Agentofallah's way with words first and his scientific knowledge second

Why, thanks! I'm flattered, really!

Proudgorgeousga:
yeah he's good. he is my E-crush

Awww...you're sweet
For some reason my mind initially interpreted E-crush as E=mc². But being your E-crush is certainly more flattering, and I think I need a break from science...haha

butterflylion:
3 likes 2 shares, 4 likes so butterflyl1on shared and liked all the way ba?

Like I said, how much Una dey sell likes and share for market? I want to sell my own. It must be something you guys seem to love and take as cash at hand so how far? Where are they sold?

The only person who seems obsessed with likes and shares is the one who goes out of his way to like and share his own posts. But if you really think this is about 'likes and shares', then you are even far dum.ber than previously thought. You aren't the least concerned about the honest reputation you "try" to build? You aren't the least concerned about putting your ego before your god? You aren't the least concerned about how you've demonstrated yourself to be a poor ambassador of the religion you so vehemently defend? Did Jesus die so that you can lie to and deceive people on his behalf?

Enjoy your infamy; but know that you have only succeeded in making yourself and your religion more repulsive.

butterflylion:
Una funny die for here I swear. So butterflyl1on is now a strange account? Any blind man can see it is same as butterflylion with the exception of the 1 for letter i.

Butterflyl1on was opened when butterflylion was banned on the oluwatobi thread but the moment the ban was lifted I even commented so on a post.

Now a spam bot got butterflyl1on and logging on was simply to check the status of it.

So Una don dey do meeting untop both butter account?

Eku meeting o.

butterflylion:
I was banned yesterday so had to register as butterflyl1on as an alternative. The difference between that one and this one is the number 1 in lion

Yes indeed! Butterflylion was unbanned on 21st September, 2017, Made this post at 11:31 am on September 23rd, 2017

butterflylion:
Jumbo Dumbo always popping up to say the dumbest of things like it matters to me. I k ow he says them to make himself look like he actually had some balls.

Marbles for balls fellow

Then somehow, the spambot logged in as Butterflyl1on at exactly 11:32 am on the same day (1 minute later); to share the post made by Butterflylion.
https://i66.tinypic.com/2remmhs.jpg

The thing is though, Butterflyl1on has no followers, so one wonders what this dum.b spambot was aiming to achieve by sharing a post by Butterflylion.

The most disappointing thing about this spambot is that it is a pathological liar that tries to be as honest as possible:

butterflylion:
Goodmorning. You see one of the things i try to do when arguing with anyone is to be as honest as possible...

Most spambots think themselves smarter than they really are!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does the Fraud called Butterflylion have another excuse for liking and sharing his own posts?

shaybebaby:
Then I have serious issues because I hate show offs with a passion. Not the person but the act. It fills me rage.

If you are truly moved by the plight of people suffering, I do not think you will have the time to post of such acts, they will not be singular events, it would be common place in your life and as such not truly remarkable to you enough to warrant publicising.

The fact that such people consider their actions a big deal is why I feel it's a no-no. Altruism should be the norm.

I don't have much love for showoffs either, but I feel passionate hate is far more emotional investment than they deserve. Personally, ignoring them is the most effective way to deal with them. People show off because they want attention, so deny them the very thing they crave, and you'd have countered their behaviour. If I would invest any emotion on them, it would be pity because I genuinely think it is personality disorder, a sickness like any other. Like I said, however, they are only worth my time if I feel their showoff can be of some good to society. If paying attention to their showoff makes a starving boy less hungry today than yesterday, I'd say the attention was worth it!