₦airaland Forum

hopefulLandlord:
I'll await Seun

I'm sure he has a very good reason for this

He'll probably give a coy non-answer like a Clinton.

#makeNLgreatagain

Edit: I'm being sarcastic FYI

hopefulLandlord:
this chat became "sticky"

Exactly, why should a personal opinion be stickied?

Deicide:
You are actually making a point....

He's on to something, religion may be the way out of recession after all.

KingEbukasBlog:
If it were an atheist child speaking against religious beliefs , trust me , Richard Dawkins will overtly adulate the child and the atheist parents .

You atheists need to stop paying attention to that attention -seeker .

So you agree that this is abuse? Good start.

oyeludef:
if u agree God created them dat way, den wat should d cleptmonaics do? Is there a way out? If there is, why cant gays too follow dat same path and come our of it?

Because stealing leaves victims and homosexuality is victimless.

Wow! I thought I was the only one. There's hardly any variety in Nigerian music, nobody wants to be different because it doesn't seem sell as much and that's what most Nigerians care about.

What happened to doing things for the art?

Lennycool:
Ahh hopes of the deluded. Unlike you I actually read about the watch from a website that didn't contain end time craziness, you wonder what you could learn, when you just stop to learn first. The watches hasn't been given any purpose by Google yet, but because it supposedly contains a needle, its suppose to measure glucose levels in diabetic patients.
Also how on earth is a watch a mark I thought you guys said it was the RFID chip?
Just skipping dreams right?

I thought it was BVN.

The days of the week are also connected to 'Pagan' gods. By observing them are you also conforming to their rites?

Source: http://www.crowl.org/lawrence/time/days.html

taurus25:
And when all fails, redefine atheism , group them, call them a religious sect and assign several gods such as richard dawkins, charles darwin, hitler, kim jun un etc to them, and erroneously claim atheists kill babies and eat them....afterall they believe in subjective morality

Erroneously?

That's just you, bro.

lordnicklaus:
Guy no vex o but why you mention my monicker?

*sucks in air through clenched teeth*

Kalatium:
You get it wrong, go and research. Evolution is global stop confusing it with theory of (biological) evolution.

Wat.

KingEbukasBlog:


Bro , he forgot World War 1 and World War 11 , let's blame Christianity for that too

Adolf Christler.

Kalatium:
No

So why did you say that the observed branching out a specie into two distinct species isn't macroevolution?

The model is very effective for keeping believers in check. Indoctrination can take you a long way in blind faith but doubt may set in due to contrary evidence.

This is where fear comes in.

The irrational fear of eternal punishment is a major stumbling against critical thinking. It stayed at the back of my mind until I was fully assured that the Abrahamic definition of god was totally false. So young children or vulnerable adults undergo the form of psychological abuse in order to keep them in line.

That is why we see people telling atheists online that they are going to Hell. It is truly the worst thing that they can say, since they actually believe it.

UyiIredia:
Yes. Dogs and wolves are the same species. And macroevolution is changes within a species.

You mean to tell me that the Canis lupus and the Canis familiaris, two animals with different specific names belong to the same species?

Kalatium:
It's not that I am denying that it happens, but evidences for microevolution are not evidence for macroevolution. Speciation does not guarantee macroevolution. We are still yet to observe macroevolution.

The difference between the Poodle and the Great Dane is termed microevolution by you.

Are you also going to call the difference between the Dog and the Wolf microevolution, too?

UyiIredia:
If the conditions were manipulated then the process isn't automatic. You are desperate.

They manipulated it in order to get a specific result. I'm sure you read it. Stop being intellectually dishonest, they took advantage of a chemical reaction. It's like taking advantage of evolution through selective breeding.

I can see you don't really have much to say, here. I'll let you stew over this. This argument is over from my end.

UyiIredia:
It can't. The link you brought clearly shows that tecto-RNA assembly was directed.

The conditions were manipulated to direct it. The process is automatic. Sorry.

UyiIredia:
They started with RNA molecules so it's should be called self-replication not self-assembly.

Tecto-RNA is only a unit of code. Like a binary digit (0 or 1). It can self assemble into complex forms. Complexity without intelligence.

UyiIredia:
You've not demonstrated RNA self-assembly.

This is an experiment that dabbles with taking advantage of RNA self assembly. This won't have been possible if it couldn't self assemble.

Jeez...

Kalatium:
But I have not seen any direct evidence of one species evolving into another.

Doesn't the link show examples of previous members of the same species unable to bread with reach other? That is what speciation is.

Kalatium:
I have read it, Great article about speciation and evidence of macroevolution, but the problem is I didn't see evidence of a species changing into another different species. Microevolution show change In size of animals, color of skin but the species did not change. It is undeniable that there is no direct evidence for evolution. Accept it or not.

No, no, no. Part 5 clearly gives examines of examples of animals in reproductive isolating toward one another, which is sympatric speciation. It also covers ring species. The article then gives a further link for observed cases of it which has several examples of it. I told you to focus on part 5. The least you could have done was follow through with it.

Father Lord regrow Oscar Pistorius's legs.

Kalatium:
The link is not working

Maybe you can try the link tomorrow. The side seems to be down for now. I still have another link that shows several examples of speciation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C3743329933

EDIT: I did some digging and found a mirror archive site for TalkOrigins.org:

http://toarchive.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html

It still stands, part 5 is the area of concentration but you should read everything if you have the time.

UyiIredia:
AFAIK RNA viruses don't self-assemble. You are grasping at straws in a desperate bid to prove the impossible.

You don't know enough, then. Why would they be trying to exploit RNA self-assembly in nanotechnology if it couldn't undergo the process?

1. Funny, I remember a time when the argument was that speciation is impossible. Now the goal posts have shifted (fallacy alert!). Anyway, there's no reason to believe in such a frivolous claim because speciation is not known to have any limit given enough time in reproductive isolation.

2. Living fossils remain unchanged have remained due to lack of environmental pressure, this is a known phenomenon known as evolutionary stasis. The coelacanth is a good example of a living fossil, studies show that its deep-sea habitat had remained unchanged, coupled with lack of predation, there simply hasn't been much natural selection taking place.

3. Evolution doesn't work on a singular organ and leave others high and dry, it is a very gradual process that affects the entire organism (to an extent). Of course, we do have cases of animals that were driven to extinction by exaggerated body parts. One example is the Irish Elk which was driven to extinction by it's ridiculously sized antlers.

4. Evolution is based on a non-random process known as natural selection. With natural selection, traits that are beneficial to an organism in a given location within a given generation are likely to be passed on to the next. This is why sudden changes to the environment can lead to mass extinctions. I repeat, evolution is non-random.

5. See no. 4. I'll add that most deleterious mutations would be gone after several generations of selection.

6. Humans are 98% similar to chimps in terms of DNA and about 70% similar to slugs. Lions, tigers and cats all display 95% of similarity with one another. DNA is used in paternity tests to show familial relations. As a general rule, DNA similarity shows closeness in familial relationships. Fossil evidence proves that not species have existed from the beginning of time, it also shows that many species that have gone extinct. Perfectly fitting into the evolutionary theory for some reason.

7. Redundant. See no. 4.

8. Fossil evidence proves that not species have existed from the beginning of time, it also shows that many species that have gone extinct. Perfectly fitting into the evolutionary theory for some reason.

9. Vestigial organs are proof against Intelligent Design. For example the human ear contains muscles that are generally too weak to move it (although there are some exceptions). In other mammalian species that morphologically resemble the common ancestor, these muscles are used to move the ears toward sound.
Furthermore, vestigiality only denotes loss of some or all function and not necessarily all. The human appendix for example, still retains some function as a store house for beneficial gut flora but was once a caecum for breaking down vegetables, this correlates with the nutritional information that can be gleamed from the dental information of a skeleton which showed that we once ate a lot of plant material.

10. Similarly, every incredibly complex structure evolved from simple parts, organisms are a bunch of anatomical systems working in tandem, anatomical systems are a bunch of organs working together, organs are related tissue structures working in tandem, tissue is made up of cells working in tandem, a cell is genetic material co-ordinating chemical reactions, genetic material is nucleic acid with a certain configuration. Nucleic acids are formed from complex organic compounds. Organic compounds are formed from Carbon, Hydrogen along with other inorganic elements. Elements come from a certain number of electrons orbiting a neutron and a proton. These structures are condensed energy. What then is so complex about concerned energy particles orbiting and colliding in a given manner?

Screw, it! I'm not editing this.

Kalatium:
You are right, many creationist are not well informed in science but that doesn't change the fact about evolution. Although many assertion they make may be unintelligent but looking deep at what they say, truly evolution has not yet answer many of their questions like the possibility of abiogenesis , macroevolution, etc.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, evolution already assumes life before it makes any claim.

Furthermore, macroevolution has been proven many times.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Part 5 is the key point. Although, all the other parts are important.

raphieMontella:
yes...that would be good...
We'd just package all the stupid verses in the bible on that thread.

We'll probably need more than one thread for that.

UyiIredia:
This is poor reasoning. They got more RNA from RNA so this is not RNA self-assembly which would require getting RNA from different precursors. Also, RNA is not a code, it is a molecule with a code which requires proteins to encode and decode it. Obviously such proteins don't self-assemble. So your assertion comes crashing down to the ground.

False. RNA viruses undergo self assembly all the time.

UyiIredia:
And the excerpt clearly states they started out with RNA so that can't possibly be self-asesmbly.

And given certain conditions they assemble into certain forms. Showing that coding does not require a designer.