₦airaland Forum

Kylehood:
Listen guys i dnt no Y u guys tink evolution dispute God.

Evolution does not dispute god because god is a vague idea. What it does, however, is that it disputes specific gods like Yahweh and Allah. Thanks to evolution, we now know that the phony account of Adam and eve is fairytale.

True der r some holes in some of the evolution theories lyk say 4 example life began with a strike of lightning on a pond.

The emboldened has nothing to do with theory of evolution.

Scientists believe dat every tin we c in d universe come 2 being by an event called the big bang. That is the earth,sun,moon n all d other heavenly bodies or watever u wnt 2 call came into existence spontaneously through dis big bang n dat der was nothing but darkness b4 dis big bang.

No scientist knows what existed before the bigbang theory. Anything you see out there is mere speculation.

A scientist i can't recall is name said dat dis occurrence is how he would expect wat God said in gen1:3(let der b light) to happen. Genesis went on n discribed how God created everytin in each day totaling 7days or 6days anyhw u wnt 2 look @ it. But remember God said dat a day is lyk a 1000yrs in his sight. So i tink u can conclude dat evolution did take place as God created d creature of d sea first n frm den on He created every other animal u c now. After which we wer created.

If god created everything in 6 days and a day is equivalent to 1,000 years, that's just 6,000 years. Man evolved several billions of years after the first primitive life form. That account is just hokum!

Like i said der r few holes in dis theories.

Yes, it's work in progress.

Scientists r hardly athiest, Einstein was a jew n he believe in God. D reason most scientists today r athiest is becus dey choose 2 b. Mainly due to certain tins dat happened 2 dem.

Not true, Einstein was Jew by ethnicity, but had spinozist (impersonal, passive universe) view of god.

I recommended 2 christains n any1else 2 watch this movie "GOD'S NOT DEAD". To fully understand wat am saying.

I heard about this movie. I will see it soon.

Lastly i dont claim 2 no it all, bt d little i have, i have shared. I Ieave u with dis quote frm a medical doctor; "Seeing d functionality and precision of the systems, organs,tissues n even d cells in d human body, n hw dey correlate to ensure n promote life n even produces life. Truely d Bible was ryt wen it said only a fool will say der is no God"

That's the doctor's personal opinion. Nothing to do with reality.

EMILO2STAY:
my grandfather is human a black man so is my father and me we even share facial resemblance and character. so it is common sense that human can only produce human in most cases you dont even need a dna test to prove that, the evidence is observable and can be reapeted but not so for the case of the evolution theory that claims that man descended from fish.

You have not provided me with an observable and repeatable evidence. There are many black men, and no shortage I'm sure, of those who look like you. You're appealing to common sense, which is not an evidence at all. Common sense also tells me that humans share a lot of similarities with other primates, so we're descendent from the same ancestors. If you reject my commonsensical premise, I have no reason to accept yours, so you're definitely not from your grandparents.

can u provide an observable evidence that man descended from a fish that transitioned into a lemur that turned into a monkey that became a man. You evolutionist are no different from the indoctrinated jihadists.

Show me your observable and repeatable evidence that you descended from your grandparents, you dim-witted, brainwashed religionist.

alexis:
Of course, Newtons laws don't apply to every situation i.e sub atomic particles, quantum systems. Perhaps I should have worded the question properly or defined it better. My question is - to the situations the laws apply, are there any exceptions?

Your question is self-referential and dumb. It doesn't deserve an answer. Is a white paper white? If I pour water inside a cup is the water inside the cup a cup contained water? If I wrote an English sentence with letters from the English alphabet, will my sentence read as Chinese?

A true reflection of your intelligence (or lack of).

alexis:
Gosh! Can you use wikipedia as a reference or source in academia ie. say your physics assignment?

You're obviously bereft of any point left to make. You're not my physics teacher!

Did I not quote the sources regarding Darwin and provided references for you to check? Are all of Darwins comments, communications and life recorded in his book? You get brain at all?

Stop lying Mr. Mendalescent. You did not quote any source. Here is your big opportunity to prove that I'm a liar, and you're being gobsmackingly casual about it. Let me quote you again:

He even went further to say that all living things came from non-life. So, these are his claims (Yours as well)

Please quote the exact statement of Darwin verbatim, and include reference and page number. You're the one trying to subject my sources to scientific rigour by asking me not to use Wikipedia as a source. Now live up to your own standard, and prove you're not a hypocrite.

EMILO2STAY:
listen man!, u need to put up an observable evidence to prove that man came from fish otherwise u are just as gullible as an indoctrinated jihadist.

Put up an observable evidence that you came from your grandfather.

UyiIredia:
code:
1. a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others,
especially for the purposes of secrecy. or a thing that represents something g other than itself.

What does the emboldened mean? Is the vice-president a code for the president when he represents him in official events? Is pareidolia a code? Are the zodiac signs a code?

alexis:
Can you tell me what exceptions there are to scientific law citing the scientific laws and the exceptions

Yes. Newton's laws fail in quantum systems. For example, newton's 2nd law states that F=ma, and it assumes constant mass. This equation is rubbished as the speed of an object approaches the speed of light because at such speeds, mass is no more constant, we start to talk of effective mass.
Also, the first law states that an object at rest will remain at rest. but if you were at rest on a merry-go-round, you'll feel a force trying to fling you off the merry-go-round. Hence, the limit of this law is that it only works provided the frame of reference is inertial. The earth is in constant movement, so Newton's law is just a very good approximation of reality, not an accurate one

Fit2Rule:
Maybe you should change your user name. Atheists don't believe in Allah. If you are an agent of Allah, then.... go figure!

Does my current username trouble you?

bookiee:
and your name is agentofallah
is allah a science person?

Allah is a fictional character...nothing to do with science, more...how to say...magical!

QMark:
How come your name is AgentofAllah?

I once was. Now I'm a renegade agent!

alexis:
AgentofAllah

Can you please address these questions:

If scientific theories are superior to scientific laws as you claim, can you please answer these questions:

1. Are there any exceptions to a scientific law?
2. Are there any exceptions to a scientific theory?

Yes to both.

alexis:
No, I simply asked you to provide references from authoritative sources. When you refer to a scientific statement, you refer to a journal to references posted by academia etc. I am saying wikipedia is not an authoritative source.

You keep forcing me to repeat myself. Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. It is not a source at all, it is a repository of sources. When I share a Wiki link with you, you can trace the statements in that link to their original peer-reviewed sources directly from Wikipedia. I have not shared those peer-reviewed links with you because this is not a formal discussion, however, IF YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC PART OF THAT LINK YOU WISH TO CONTEST, LET ME KNOW AND I PROMISE TO PULL OUT THE ORIGINAL SOURCE FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. Capish

If I am quoting Darwin, I don't refer to wikipedia as my source or reference because it can be edited an uploaded by anyone

Hahaha...Coming from someone who puts fabricated words into Darwin's pen and/or quotes him out of context/misquotes him, from 3rd hand sources like a christian apologetic site with liminal ulterior motive. The one time I quoted Darwin, I quoted directly from his book! And for what it is worth, Wikipedia is still more neutral than your apologetic site, so please, spare me the sanctimonious pontification.

alexis:
Of course I am a theists, not only that; the reason the evolution model of simple life to complex life makes no sense is that there are no recorded examples of it happening. There are two issues here:

1. The claim that complex life came from single organism was never proven by anyone. Darwin observed birds and said the the changes in the beaks of the birds mean that humans evolved from amoeba. And that is simple not true. Theists don't doubt micro-evolution or evolution that can be observed i.e. adaptation and that has never been my argument. My argument is that evolution doesn't provide proof of simple life to complex life or from one KIND to another KIND. That has always been my stand and that is all I have asked you to provide proof on. Instead you have mentioned similarities to prove we all came from an amoeba.
2. Darwin claimed life came from non-life at some point in his life. I am including a link from the "US National Library of Medicine". Please read the whole account and references before you respond. I hate having to address the same issue over and over again: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745620/

Let me quote you:

alexis:
He even went further to say that all living things came from non-life. So, these are his claims (Yours as well)

So I'm asking again, could you give the exact quotation of Darwin in quotation marks. I'm asking for a single line and reference detail where Darwin said the above. I have read the link you shared, and nowhere in that link did Darwin say such a thing. Either provide the quote or admit your second of numerous mistakes, keeping your words in mind: "We all make mistakes and an honest person should admit it when he has made one".

These are not the claims of the evolution we are talking about. And to use this as an example is very dis-honest on your part. The sperm of a man and the egg of a woman are unique in that they are both from humans i.e. the same KIND. A human sperm and a human egg doesn't produce an alien. The sperm is not of a donkey and the egg is not that of a lion and that is what you are describing. You have attempted several times to give examples that are not related to the case. All I am asking is this - if indeed the Darwin theory of simple life from i.e. amoeba to a complex life form, say a fish. Can it be replicated? YOU HAVE REFUSED TO ADDRESS THIS CLAIM

Please explain why a Lion's sperm and a tiger's egg produces a liger.

You keep making yourself look stu.pid by stating such. It shows how much you know about the topic you are discussing. It is at this point where intellects put their brains down and run off in the opposite direction. All my family are humans; there are no fishes, goats or apes in our lineage and that is why I am a human. We are of the same KIND. . If you want me to say it in another language, I will try to . My proof is repeatable, it can be observed and experimented. All I ask is you to the same

My request was simple. Show me how you came from your great-grandparents. I don't care if they are humans or goats or fish, demonstrate your emergence in a repeatable scientific manner. SO FAR, YOU HAVE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE YOUR EMERGENCE IN A REPEATABLE MANNER, so your claim that you're from your great-grandparents is a laughable, false claim. And you're gullible to believe you came from your great-grandparents.

Dude, why are you arguing blindly. Are you saying that two humans can or can't produce a third human? You seem to be saying that since there is no record of my grand-parents having sex to give birth to my parents and than to me; it it means it's not repeatable - is that your claim?

I don't care if two humans can produce a third human, I'm only asking for repeatable scientific proof that can be observed in a science lab that you are a descendant of your great-grandparents.
I hope you are beginning to see how ridiculous it gets when you start asking for the impossible. You claim DNA links you to your great-grandparents. Why is the DNA result linking you to your great-grandparents any more plausible than the one linking you to an old-world monkey? You don't have a coherent idea, you're just happy being a perfunctory observer

Repeatable means you can reproduce the claim. For example, my grand-parents where humans and when humans have sex they produce off-spring. I can repeat that process; I can observe it and say, when they have sex what happens after that i.e. fertilization of the sperm and egg etc. I can draw conclusive results stating that when two humans mate; they can produce another human being.

Yes, I know what repeatable is, and since your claim is that you came from your great-grandparent, please reproduce that claim.

Now, try and do the same with two different animals or in your case from simple forms of an amoeba and see how it produces a more complex animal. This has always been my claim and you seem to be dancing in a circle in addressing it

To be clear, you don't disagree with the supposition that complexity can emerge from simplicity, which is why I used the childbirth anecdote. So your assumption that a complex animal cannot emerge from a simple lifeform is not at all grounded in science. Your only contention is that one "kind" cannot emerge from another. You're absolutely wrong though. I mentioned liger before, but there are several hybrid species. Can you please explain why genetic hybrids exist?

UyiIredia:
The bolded are qualities intrinsic to the lattice. They don't code for the lattice. Using your logic the code for the compound water would be that it is colorless, is a universal solvent, heats at 100°C whereas water (is the actual liquid) on its own codes for nothing what I've mentioned care properties of water. a see on its unique partial bonding.

Could you clarify what you mean by code exactly?

UyiIredia:
You are mistaking complex patterns for codes. Not all patterns are codes. In your example the zinc blend hexagonal lattices represent nothing else so they aren't codes.

But of course they do! They represent a lot of things. For example, they ultimately affect the optical bandgap of bulk GaN, its structural quality, mechanical and thermodynamic behaviour. They also prevent bulk GaN from mixing with other lattice mismatched semiconductors, causing phase separation and predictable compositional fluctuations.

UyiIredia:
No. It's based on inductive inference which is the basis of the scientific method. Living things (humans( repeatedly make coded systems. Since living things themselves are coded an intelligent Creator had to have made them.

I assume by code, you're referring to the DNA. Your extrapolation is superfluous, and has nothing logical about it. Non-living things are also made of complex codified patterns. If I freeze molten gallium nitride (GaN) for example, it solidifies into a 3D chain of zinc-blend hexagonal crystal lattices with definite shape and dimensions. This code was achieved just by the process of cooling GaN. Yet it is senseless to claim that because loss of heat causes codes in GaN, every thing exhibiting code is as a result of temperature loss.

alexis007:
asked for a saga?....you are not serious...anyway keep this epistle...you know,it could win you mega millions in an essay competition

Oh how kind of you to flatter me so! I knew deep down, you had some appreciation for my effort, you're just shy to directly admit it.

alexis007:
you now want me out of this thread?i hope you are joking...because the last time i checked,i still reserve my freedom of association...and naughty me,that Allah guy worked himself out just to convert me to darwinism....he tried battering his way 2ru an impenetrable fortress.

I agree with your self-burn! impenetrable fortress is just another euphemism for thick skull

i sincerely do hope that long dissertation he wrote me was copied-and-pasted from Wiki (which is relatively easier than trying to form arguments on your own)

Regrettably, nothing I wrote was copy and paste. I actually spent time trying to address your misconceptions and answering your question. I apologise to myself for thinking you were worth my time.

....and just like peter,i've backed out of the debate(it's no use trying to convince one to see abiogenesis the biblical Genesis when he is already more evolutionist than charles darwins)

If I didn't know better though, I'd say your backing out is a tad bit convenient. A lily-livered sketch of escapism, perhaps?
Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, stop lying!

....i'm only here to inject a brief comic relief

If your style of comic relief is self-jubilant dimwittedness, then I give it to you, you're a natural, only it gets boring after a while.

after alexis and you hotheads must have wasted your tym and data typing vain crap...

Wasted time? Maybe... But I just might have a lot of time to waste. Don't worry about my data though, I have unlimited internet subscription.

alexis007:
it's just that it was so long that i thought you were writing me a dissertation

You asked for it!!!

michaelwestern:
did you read OP

Yes

i never made a general assumption about atheists.

Yes you did. Read what you wrote again:

It seems that most atheist on nairaland believe in God but they think he's a wicked God

alexis:
You are not only stu.pid but blind as well. This was what I posted:

According to Darwin, the simple cell, which he honestly thought was simple—contrary to modern cell biology—could have arisen from non-living chemicals in a warm little chemical pond (Darwin, 1959, 2:202)

I think I see where your coming from. You're quoting a Christian apologetic site (http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=610) which probably misquoted/intentionally misconstrued Darwin. I'll excuse that. Now I'm asking you to provide me with a specific reference where Darwin made such a claim. (Darwin, 1959, 2:202) is not a reference because it does not tell me where to look. Kindly reference the book/journal and page number (like I did when I referenced the origin of species). If it's from a journal, also provide the year, volume and issue numbers. I have access to all manuscripts ever published in the history of science, so please show me where Darwin made such a claim. Contrary to what your fake apologetic site claims, evolution does not talk about the origin of life, it assumes the a priori existence of life, much like Newton's work on gravity does not speculate on the source of gravity, but assumes the existence of gravity

My mistake. My intent was to state that jellyfishes are not vetebrates as humans yet the claim that we are all came from a single organism doesn't hold water. I admit that I made an error.

Glad you haven't sacrificed all of your honesty on the alter of blind faith.

Coming from someone who can't refute what I posted. Cha!. The claims here are simple; if we indeed did come from single cell organism, we should be able to repeat the process. So far, you haven't come close to providing an example of how to repeat such process.

Every time a sperm cell fertilises an egg, it becomes a single cell organism. With time, this single cell becomes a complex being via mitosis, so your assumption that complexity cannot emerge from a single entity is hokum! If you want me to show you evidence of a fish producing a human offspring, you first repeat the process of your great-grandparents giving birth to your grandparents, and then your parents and then you. If that process is scientific but unrepeatable, then I wonder why you think science requires that evolutional facts must be repeatable to be true. There are tools were use, e.g. DNA sequencing, to verify them, very much in the same way DNA tests can verify your great-grandparents.

alexis:
You have summed up your mathematical reasoning quite well. We are off-springs of fishes and amoeba - you are arrived at that conclusion because someone else said so. . Look, I hardly have time for idio.ts. You have posted wikipedia several times even when I stated that scientists and serious researchers don't refer to wikipedia. Since you want to know which link you posted - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Don't try to save your face. You're a liar, and I called you out. You mendaciously accused me of "copying and pasting" from Wikipedia now you changed your accusation from "copy and paste" to posting a link. Which is still a lie. I hyperlinked a word which I used in my text, but I didn't copy and paste from wiki or post a link. When a word is hyperlinked, you don't have to click on it. I only hyperlinked it because I thought it might be useful, but the hyperlink played no role in the content or quality of my text.

On Wikipedia, do you mean to claim that there are no factual contents? We're having a scientific discussion, yes, but it's not a formal discussion, so I can use Wikipedia as a reference. Like I earlier said, tackle the message, not the messenger. If you wish to contest anything in the particular Wikipedia article I shared because it is scientifically inaccurate, please do so, then we can discuss further. But dismissing it because it is from Wikipedia is an informal logical fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem or "poisoning the well", which is a disingenuous thing to do. But then again, you're no stranger to dishonesty, are you? And yes, in case you didn't notice, I hyperlinked your fallacy to Wikipedia so you can educate yourself.

alexis007:
@ agentofallah...you duplicated your full biology textbook here and expect me 2 study it?...dude biko,abridge that epistle....who'd read all that nah?am i preparing for a final year examination?...

You asked for my coherent argument, and I obliged. I even made an illustration just for you. If you didn't want it you shouldn't have asked, and I wouldn't have bothered. Maybe your unwillingness to read is the problem here.

and i really need to follow you to your village so that i can see this 700-year old tree you are talking about...

700 years is quite young in tree age. Trees can live for several thousands of years of you let them.

alexis007:
Now back to where you still assert that fishes and planktons are your ancestors[not mine]

It's interesting you mentioned fish and planktons. Your half-baked, half-namesake friend thinks a jellyfish is a fish, when actually, it is a plankton.

.......can you,coherently this time,explain why you and Darwins think that there's no invisible brick wall that prevents an organism from mutating into a completely different organism with completely different physical features?...seize this opportunity and be my biology teacher (*sneering*if only you won't teach me bloody crap...)

I shall oblige you because you have asked a valid question, in spite of the not-so-subliminal hint of derision in your question. I will start and end with a simple question which you should keep in mind for later: If you take a look at the numerous branches on a massive 700 year-old tree, does it make sense to talk about an invisible brick wall between the branches?

Now, to understand Darwin's theory, let us proceed with a very simple abstract concept, numbers. Let's call this the theory of numbers (ToN).

We all agree that the numbers 0, 1, 2, 3 .... all have their unique, individual and discrete identities, yes? Now, what you may not know is that the difference between 0 and 1 is a continuous straight line. What that means is that there is literally an infinite array of numbers that can fit between 0 and 1. So my question is: What separates these two numbers? You will see that whereas 0 is not 1, if you add enough infinitesimal amount of numbers, say 1X10^-10000 (microevolution) to zero, it eventually "evolves" into the distinct number 1 with time (macroevolution). The same is true for the separation between 1 and 2, 2 and 3 and so on and so forth. But our ToN doesn't end there. This simple premise also means that with enough microevolution, our number 0 can evolve into the number 1 trillion (with time). So, again, I ask, what separates 0 from 1 trillion? The very interesting thing about our ToN is that at every discrete integer point, each number has its unique identity, but also has shared identities with other numbers. Take note that these numbers aren't independent creations, but are linked to each other by a (one dimensional) line.

Okay, what happens if I make a second dimensional line that branches off the main line from the number 3 (refer to the figure below)? This second dimensional line consists of discrete integers that are prime numerals (i.e. only divisible by 1 and themselves). It's a different branch, from the main line leading to 1 trillion, but it is still connected to the main line by an infinitesimal amount of numbers (microevolutions that only identify with prime numbers). You can make many other identity (multidimensional) branches from the main line, (e.g. even numbers, odd numbers, palindromic numbers, numbers in Fibonacci sequence etc) and these branches will look nothing like each other. How did we achieve such diverse macroevolution of numberforms (analogous to lifeforms)? Only by adding small numbers that are infinitesimally small, they are de facto 0.

https://s15.postimg.org/639x1jh57/Evolution_of_numbers2.jpg

Our Theory of Numbers therefore, prove one point: That microevolusion will in fact, diverge into macroevolution with enough time. I hope you're following so far. So, the question then, can be divided into two parts, namely:

1) Is there evidence that such infinitesimal evolution is happening in biological organisms, and
2) What is driving such increments.

The answer to the first question is yes! We find slight genetic variations in species that suggests that these differences are acquired by adapting to new environments. How do we know this? Well, basically, the frequency of alleles, which are genetic markers on the DNA strands of living creatures changes with species, based upon the culture that is under investigation. We have also found that many animals have vestigial body parts which are remnant body parts that have fallen out of use for their respective environments, and therefore, aren't as expressed as they once were in their ancestors. For example, if you look at a whale, one of the few marine mammals, it has no hind legs, but when you look at its skeleton, you find that it has vestigial hind leg bones. Why? The only conclusion is that its ancestors had hind legs at some point in the past, and since legs are only useful on land, our conclusion must necessarily be that the whale was at some point in the past, a land creature which returned to the sea. Indeed, fossils with full arms and legs, resembling a whale, have been discovered in Pakistan. These are colloquially referred to as walking whales, but are called Ambulocetus in biology. We also know of the blind-moles, which are completely blind, yet have small eyes covered by a thick layer of skin. Why do they have eyes if they don't need them? Obviously, their ancestors must have had eyes in the past, which then fell out of use because of their environment. But those eyes are still there, just not useful anymore. We all also know Lions and tigers to be different species of felines, yet they have been shown to produce offsprings when they mate. Why? Aren't they supposed to be different "kinds"? The most compelling evidence for a common ancestry is that there are certain types of proteins present in the genes of all living things. While such a fact does not on its own, suggest a common ancestry (horizontal gene transfer may cause shared proteins too) the fact that these proteins are statistically favoured to be localised around certain regions on the DNA suggests that they were derived from the same parent. This was the work of Douglas Theobald, which he submitted to Nature journal, one of the most reputable journals in the world of science, under the title "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry" Not sure if you can access Nature publications at your location, but in case you can, the link is Here. I don't want to bore you with technical detail, so I'll switch to metaphors.

Besides genetics and fossil records, can it be demonstrated that humans and fish have similar ancestry? No! And I'll explain why: Imagine you were to uproot a 700 year-old massive tree and then at very small intervals, you cut it cross-sectionally, from its roots to its last leaf. If you picked up the lowest part of the root and the tip end of the leaf, will you be able to immediately demonstrate that the tip of the leaf came from the root of the tree? Most definitely not! There would only be three ways to demonstrate such a fact, as follows:

1) You plant the root of the tree, wait another 700 years, and hope its branches and leaves grow in exactly the same manner.
2) You rearrange the small cross-sectional parts of the tree from the roots to the trunk to the branches until you get to the tip of the leaf. If the tip of the leaf fits in that arrangement, you can say you have demonstrated the fact
3) You can determine the genetic make up of the root of the tree and the tip of the leaf. If they correspond, you have a high degree of certainty that the tip comes from the root.

If we examine these methods, we can immediately see that the first method is an impossibility because it is highly unlikely that your life will be patient with you for 700 years; and even if you lived for 700 years, you still don't know that the root and the leaf will grow in exactly the same manner as 700 years ago. I mean, no two orange trees look exactly alike, nor do two branches of the same tree. This method is analogous to you asking for proof that a fish can turn into human. It is senseless, so we rule this method out.

Method 2, arranging each part of the cross-section, is more likely to yield a result, although, a lot of things could have happened to the individual cross sectional parts of the tree, for example, some parts of its trunk might have lost some water due to evaporation, making it impossible for you to fit such parts into the continuum as they would appear incompatible. Also, some parts of the leaves might have dried up and crumbled, meaning you will be missing many parts eventually, when you fit the puzzle. You may get an overall big picture, but you might never get the complete picture. This method is analogous to the many fossils that were preserved and show gradual changes in life forms with time. How do we know that these changes happened in time, and not at the same time? Well, the fossils are found in rocks and the age of these rocks are estimated using radiometric dating. The age of the rocks gives an indication of when these fossils got fossilised, and hence, the time in which such life form existed. In the case of Trilobites, for example, fossil records show a gradual increment in their sizes and complexity as time elapsed. We will never be able to get the complete picture of our tree of life because every new fossil is a matter of luck, but all the fossils we have found so far give a big picture of common ancestry if we are to consider that generally, the older the rocks, the more primitive the life-form in it looks

Method 3: Genetic tests of the root and leaf tip will give you a probabilistic statement that a leaf and root come from the same tree. This method is analogous to the Universal Common Ancestry (UCA) theory. Here, we can see science in its full glory. The genetic sequencing of many living things has enabled us to connect local trees of convergent species. And continuously, what we see are small clusters (leaves) converging into branches, which converge into a bigger family of branches, which converge into the three's trunk, and finally to the root. Isn't this spectacular? We can actually see how far along the line the species have diverged, often forming a new so-called 'kinds'

2) Naturally, you want to know what drives evolution. Simple, it is the need to survive and adapt to new natural realities, which keep changing. For example, genetics have shown that man originated from east Africa. East Africa has a vast savannah landscape. The main feature of savannahs is their sparsely spaced trees. Now consider this: The landscape wasn't always savannah. It became so due to changing climate. As the trees became further and further apart, man came down from the tree. Instead of the normal tree to tree hopping that our close primate cousins do, we had to walk from one tree to another in search of food and shelter. Becoming bipedal, therefore became more natural for us (to conveniently see where we were going) than walking on all four. Another feature of the savannah is their short trees, so man became more exposed to the scorching heat of east Africa than ever before. How did we deal with this? We shed our furs (body hair). We became less hairy than our simian cousins. Though, we haven't lost the muscles that control bodily hair, so we still get goosebumps when we're scared or when we're cold. In animals with fur, when they are threatened, these muscles contract, raising their body hair to make them appear bigger than they actually are, so as to scare away their tormentors. Also, these muscles contract when the animal is very cold, so that the standing hair acts as windbreaker of a sort. Neither of these functions (protection from cold and scaring off predators) are fulfilled in modern day humans, yet, we still experience goosebumps, why? Vestigial muscle. Also, we have a vestigial tailbone and useless wisdom teeth. Why? These are useful to our ancestral cousins, but not us, yet we have them. Only natural selection can explain such things, hence, the driving force for evolution is mainly natural selection.

I know you're probably bored by now, but much respect to you if you actually read my essay to this point. Feel free to shoot me with any question you may have.

Allow me to end this with the question I asked earlier: If you take a look at the numerous branches on a massive 700 year-old tree, does it make sense to talk about an invisible brick wall between the branches?

I leave you to answer it for yourself.

alexis:
AgentOfAllah
When people copy and paste from Wikipedia in an online debate, it bores me. I have addressed this statement above, please refer to it. I am getting physically tired responding to the same thing over and over again.

"Thou shall not bear false witness"---9th of Yahweh's 10 commandments.

You're a shameless, pathetic LIAR! If my mathematical reasoning was too complex for you, you could simply have asked me to break it down, and I would even have been happy to share with you the freshly plotted figures of the reference plots to enhance your understanding, instead your arrogance compelled you to wrongfully accuse me of copying and pasting from Wikipedia. Share the Wikipedia link I copied from if you are truthful. Olodo!

alexis:
[size=15pt]He [Darwin]even went further to say that all living things came from non-life. So, these are his claims (Yours as well)
[/size]

Given your mendacious antecedents of fabricating nonsense, I really don't think you could, but I'll still ask anyway: Can you cite where Darwin said the above?

You know when someone has reached the point of desperation when they have to stoop to the inelegance of mendacity to earn cheap points.

alexis: The Chordata phylum doesn't prove anything Bros, jelly fishes are not vertebrates yet considered fishes. Then act like a scientist and make it clear that evolution is just what it is - a theory/an assumption that you insist on being the correct answer to life when you can't prove it. All I ask is that you be honest.

Another reason to ignore you. You think a jellyfish is a fish, when actually, it is a zooplankton. This is the same person trying to debate evolution, and he doesn't even know the basics. I guess you've never heard of the word "misnomer" before. I would be shocked if you don't think seahorses are actual horses. We should coin a new word for people like you, ignolatry; that is, the worship of ignorance. You don't deserve my time!

Don't bother Bros - so far you are close to building an alien ship than to proving your reasoning is actually objective.



I never said shared ancestry - THAT IS NOT THE CLAIM HERE. Your claim is that we are of the same KIND, there-fore we are related. The proof of my lineage to my grand parents can be tested an replicated. For one:

1. My grand-parents were humans; we shared 100% in every way possible the very same DNA - ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE.
2. Since they were humans, and I am human - if I mate with another human i.e. OF THE SAME KIND - Another human will be born.

Idio.ts like you decide to put your reasoning in the trash-bag when it comes to matters of science. I have repeatedly asked you to provide REPEATABLE, REPLICABLE, OBSERVABLE PROOF that we humans can originate from fish - so far, you have been successful at showing your public stupid.ity than your scientific claims. Your stupi.di.ty is beginning to offend me



Stop trying to cover your lies. Macro evolution does claim two similar specie of the same KIND can give rise to a different specie of another KIND. Your claims of "subtle and gradual adaptations to different environmental needs" cannot be proven by science nor can it be proven in a lab. That is why I have stated such claims are beliefs rather than tested science. Your entire premise hinges on claims that you can't prove. I am actually beginning to think you are constipated



Evolutionists always do the same thing, you just have to be patient for them to dig their own graves. If you are claiming micro-evolution i.e. species of the same kind produce another specie of the same kind - then you and I shouldn't be having this discussion. However, your claims are that same species of one KIND can give rise to a different specie of a different KIND. This is what Darwinism is all about - all different KINDs of species originated from one single specie which originated from a non-life. Now, you are here twisting your words and saying otherwise.



I can't respond to a website that anyone can edit and update. You can provide snippets from respected Scientist and universities and I will refer to them and respond accordingly. Scientists don't refer to wikipedia to lay claims. You can attempt to do the same on your thesis in school and wait for the response from your professor.



Darwin claim is that we all i.e every single KIND of animal, plant and living thing came from the same ancestor? The dog, cat, croc, elephant, humans, whales, flowers, flies etc were genetically modified "over a long" period of time and that gave rise to complex creatures. If you can prove with facts, conduct scientific repeatable and observable process "what actually happened" "OVER THE LONG PERIOD" of time to. He even went further to say that all living things came from non-life. So, these are his claims (Yours as well)

1. Life came from non-life: I will leave this bone for you to crack later
2. Single & simple life form somehow evolved into trees, bats, cock roaches, moths, sharks, jelly-fish, humans, lions, apes, honey badger etc.
3. Darwin never stated if you crossed a fish with a croc it will produced a new kind of animal literally. He did go further and say, crocs and fishes are products of random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code. He didn't care to explain "HOW IT HAPPENED" with any proof. So, the fish was sitting down and due to some unknown reason, it modified over-time and evolved to be a snake. So on and so forth and here we are humans. THAT IS DARWIN CLAIM



Dude - that is simply not true. Darwin claim is that all life came from non life and developed from a simple form to complex forms. Were do they brain-wash you guys? Darwin claimed that life started on earth in a 'warm little pond'. He favored the possibility that life could appear by natural processes from simple inorganic compounds, his reluctance to discuss the issue resulted from his recognition that at the time it was possible to undertake the experimental study of the emergence of life.

Please refer to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745620/. Read his reference on how life started and try and SHUTUP after that



Malu, when did I mention hydrogen? Idiot.s like you don't reason objectively. If you want to debate me on any subject, I will gladly indulge you. All I ask if that you bring some proof with you.



I said macro-evolution is a theory and can't be proven in a science lab - your response was this link: http://ultraphyte.com/2012/02/21/evolution-in-the-lab/. It was at this point that I stated two species of the same KIND doesn't give rise to a different KIND of animal. Either read the question pretty well or look at yourself in the mirror because you call someone else a LIAR



Stop insisting on being stup.id man. You and I are not related to cock roaches or jelly-fishes - SUCH CLAIMS CAN'T BE PROVEN EVEN IF YOU SAY IT ONE BILLION TIMES. You simply can't prove it scientifically. That is why it's a belief because it can't be proven scientifically. They are ideas of one man that have been amplified.



The Chordata phylum doesn't prove anything Bros, jelly fishes are not vertebrates yet considered fishes. Then act like a scientist and make it clear that evolution is just what it is - a theory/an assumption that you insist on being the correct answer to life when you can't prove it. All I ask is that you be honest.



Cha - mumuness no good oh. Please read my posts again. I never claimed that we don't share similarities with other animals. My claim is that we are distinct and unique. A human is a human and didn't evolve from a fish. A fish is a fish and didn't evolve from an amoeba. A flower is a flower and didn't evolve from anything else other than a flower. Every living thing in it's class is unique and is not a product of a random accident over time that you can't explain. I advise that you go back to your drawing board and decide to either become a magician or a scientist - you can only be one

*yawn* ...Boring

Peterken05:
How many people know you as an atheist (offline)? Family? Friends?

Do you hide as an atheist (offline)?

Do you avoid people knowing you as an atheist or avoid discussions that will lead to it?

Do you feel threatened, uncomfortable by people knowing you as an atheist?

I need your answers, thanks.

I'm an academic, so in my academic circles, I freely discuss about my irreligiousity and I'm notorious for shutting religious academics up in my school. To their credit, they're much easier to debate than folks on Nairaland because they are scientifically minded, and are given to reason.

Whenever I visit my parent's home though, I'm a closet atheist, not because my family will harm me, but because my mama is quite the drama queen, so I don't want to ruffle her feathers because no matter what, mummy is mummy, if you know what I mean...

Yes of course! All atheists are fake atheist wannabes, who are merely expressing religious bigotry in the religion of blasphemism.

OP I hope this well established fact about atheists helps you sleep well at night...lol

alexis007:
'theory of evolution' can kiss my ass...till some genius scientist would explain how two fishes would mate to produce a human being [no fins,no gills,no natural body temperature that tolerates water as an abode]...and since they lay eggs which hatch their young...i'm thinking about a situation where two tilapia fishes were cooling off after having sex only to see the eggs they lay hatch out Adam [of course that is the world's 1st man]....Oh my G!..Darwins is a terrible Joker!

SMHFY
You make me want to believe in god, if only to ask it to slap some sense into you. You're hopeless!! Haha

alexis007:
are you teaching me basic science?i wasn't science-inclined @ school but i knew all these...kindly save me the epistle....still sticking with #TeamEvolutionIsAHoax.......you can't shake my faith with a joke of a theory

You weren't science inclined in school? No wonder! Yet you're trying to dismiss a well established scientific theory. Calling you stu.pid is a benevolent euphemism.

.....maybe i don't have answers to all your questions....but i'm dead certain about 1 contemporary issue...when Ebola infiltrated Nigeria...it wasn't science that conquered [Nigeria 4 sure can't boast of the best of health facilities]...yet it eventually was rolled back...now even america looks up to us 4 ways to tackle the deadly virus...one thing i'd never miss is how christains and muslims alike made supplications to God for rescue,and He failed not!!...My brother,if you don't suspect the invisible hand of God in the fashioning of life on earth and the universe in general....You are missing a vital information...PERIOD!

Now you're not just ignorant. You're also quite crazy too! You insult the doctors and nurses who sacrificed their lives to save Nigeria from a major pandemic with your stupidity.

All those drips, and carefully administered medicines weren't the reasons the survivors survived, it was because Christians and Muslims prayed to god. Answer me these 5 questions:

1) Did you hear of anybody who survived Ebola outside of the hospital?

2) Did you hear of Sis Jartu Kerkulah?
She was a prayer warrior who lost her life to Ebola. Guess how...your god's Ebola curing prowess in action.

3) Why did your god allow an Ebola outbreak in the first place?

4) Why hasn't your god performed his miracles in the other Ebola ravaged countries?

5) If as you claim, it's the grace of god, not science, that stopped Ebola, then what exactly is America expecting to learn from Nigeria? How to invoke the grace of god? Never knew you needed special classes for that!

Please park well jarre!!!

Liekiller:
I admire your patience. Everything you say is absolutely correct, but this is like talking to a brick wall. Nothing can seemingly overcome the incredible arrogance of the ignorant when they think they are "refuting" 150 years of intense research and a scientific theory that has never been falsified in the process - without understanding even the most fundamental basics of it all.

Thanks. These people are rather very fascinating when you're not on the receiving end of their ignorance. I mean, if you wish to debate against a scientific theory, the least you must do is know about the subject. This individual I'm debating with hasn't even the slightest idea what's in the book, and I can tell because he's too happy to attribute false statements to Darwin, and fabricate complete nonsense, claiming it is part of the theory. Yet he thinks it is fashionable to spew his truckload of ignorance on the world.

Now, at great pains, let me destroy the rest of your garbage talk for the sake of posterity, and so that you don't claim that I avoided them.

alexis:
AgentOfAllah
Yes I can, but your question is a historic legal one and not a scientific one. I can prove on my birth certificate that I am an off-spring of cosummation between my mother and dad and both my parents can do the same. Heck - we can even trace it via DNA if you want scientific proof. So, it's scientifically possible for me to prove that I an of the SAME KIND from my grand parents.

No, I asked for scientific evidence, not historical or legal evidence (these two cannot be subjected to scientific tests). Anyway, you offered me DNA tests. Okay, I'll go with that. So you believe DNA can tell about your shared ancestry with your grand parents, but you don't believe it can tell about our shared ancestry with fish? Now who's being conveniently irrational? I scoff at your stupidity!

That is why I state that evolution requires belief and blind faith. You are posting a link that is based entirely on belief with no scientific proof whatsoever - you are assuming we share a common ancestry with fish because someone "thinks" so. All I have asked is for proof: Can you replicate the above in a scientific lab to prove your statement? I will answer that for you - NO YOU CAN'T because it's not scientific. It's a theory, I am not denying that but it has no scientific backing; if it does - my challenge is simple:

1. So me step by step lineage of how we came from a fish that I can observe, document, experiment myself. If you can't, then please concede that it's not scientific.

Your question is irrelevant because evolution does not claim a linear transmogrification of species as I earlier stated, it rather claims a convergence of all species, which diverged through very subtle and gradual adaptations to different environmental needs. Of course a linear transmogrification is not scientific, and I don't know where I ever stated otherwise. The only reason the theory of evolution rules the world of biology today is because it has ample scientific evidence that supports it. You may continue to repeat that stupid claim that it doesn't, but you cannot change the fact.

So, I am to follow wikipedia as your evidence of scientific proof - Bros, I can log into wikipedia, edit it as well an anyone can. A human can mate with a chimp but it will never produce an off-spring because we ARE NOT OF THE SAME KIND. Just the same way, we didn't come from a FISH because we are not of the same KIND. Induces other animals of the same specie are all within the same KIND. Humans can't cross a fish with a croc and produce a new KIND of animal - that is what Darwin stated.

I don't expect you to accept anything Wikipedia says. However, the claims in the Wikipedia pages I have shared with you have links to peer-reviewed papers publish in reputable scientific journals. I do not intend to bore you with those, but you can always trace them back if you wish to. So don't dismiss it because it's Wikipedia, dismiss it because it is scientifically inaccurate, by showing the inaccuracy in the claim.

Since you have read Darwin's theory, and know everything there is to know about it, kindly show me where Darwin stated humans can cross a fish with a croc to produce a new kind of animal. If you don't, you're a liar!

You need to spend more time reading:

1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang
2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.
4. Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.
5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.
6. Micro-Evolution: The variation within kinds of species.

We are discussing the 5th issue and that is where you have so far displayed your ignorance. I asked you for observable, repeatable and reproducible examples and so far so have given me wikipedia as proof

- Of the above supposed 6 types of Evolution, only the last one, Micro-Evolution, has ever been observed.
- The other 5 types of Evolution are part of the Theory of Evolution.
- The other 5 types of Evolution are all theoretical, and have never been observed.
- They cannot be reproduced in a laboratory, and do not therefore fall under the strict definition of a science.
- They are in fact a belief system, taught in countless schools and universities in the world.
- Sadly they are taught as fact, even though the factual content of the Theory of Evolution cannot be proved or disproved, since nobody was present, and these beliefs cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.

You're rather very ignorant, aren't you? Cosmic evolution, stellar evolution and planetary evolution are part of the 'Theory of Evolution'? Wow!!! Can you even listen to yourself? For once, do yourself a favour and read on the Theory of Evolution. You also claim 'Organic evolution' is about the origin of life. Are you flipping kidding me? You must think this is some kind of joke where you make rubbish up. The Theory of Evolution is The Theory of evolution, and it is one coherent theory that explains biodiversity. It doesn't even explain the origin of life. For that, you'll need to study hypotheses on abiogenesis. The theory proceeds from the fact that life already existed to start with. I would love to take you up on your stu.pid claim that hydrogen being the building block of all other elements has not been proven, but that is a discussion for when you're more educated. Maybe you should read on nuclear fusion and what happens in stars as they burn their amassed hydrogen. SMH...your ignorance knows no bounds!

Coming from a man so said the producing a SILVER fox from another fox is a sign of macro evolution . I rest my case.

Yes, when you find no means to support your ignorant claims, put words in my mouth, and then debunk your imaginary argument. LIAR!

You are the one that claimed we came from a fish - I asked you for proof and you said I should prove I came from my grand-parents. I employ you to take your studies more objectively and don't display your ignorance online. So, I am still waiting for a clear scientific proof of macro-evolution.

We have common ancestry with fishes, and the proof is that we share in the characteristics that unify all member species of the Chordata phylum in the animal kingdom. I earlier mentioned the pharyngeal, but there are countless others, which you can look up yourself. That's as scientific as it gets. If you want me to demonstrate a fish transform into human, then you're asking the wrong person. I am a scientist, not a magician. Take your fairytale questions to your god. Maybe, in the process, you can ask your god why all living things have so many commonalities, that the only conclusion we can make is that we all have a common ancestry. Ask your god why humans have several complex biological characteristics that seem necessary for the survival of other animals but are completely redundant in humans. Was this a diabolic joke?