sinequanon:


You have no argument. You should read properly the answers I have already given you, and structure your responses logically.

I can do nothing with illogical replies.

I understand your excuse. You cannot argue science if you cannot explain or understand it.

I gave you academical and credible links you cannot refute and this is the best response you can give. Then go to any laboratory and test the hydrolysis of proteins with water. I'm sure you can wait for 600 hundred years.

AgentOfAllah:


I understand your calculation. My question, however, was whether the concentration of water affects the hydrolyzation rate. Say it takes 1 bathtub of water to fully hydrolyze a typical animal in 6,000,000,000 years, will immersion in two bathtubs worth take half the time? That was my question. Put in other words, if a typical animal were to be submerged in a river, and the water were pure, would it really take up to 6 billion years to hydrolyze?

Okay, I understand your question, but no the concentration does not affect it. The concentration in the case of water means the number of moles. And all reactions have mole ratios of reactants and products produced. So, even if the organism is thrown into the Atlantic ocean, the same amount of water that might attack it will not increase, in proportion to the amount of protein.

AgentOfAllah:


Forgive my ignorant question, chemistry isn't my forte. But is this rate not affected by the concentration of water?

What I calculated is the number of years it would take water to hydrolyze all the proteins of a typical animal. And obviously, it is impossible for any organism to remain in water for 6 billion years. It will reproduce, move around and die even before one bond from one protein is broken. These FACTS provided by pro creationists has however proved that evolution is possible.

sinequanon:


Sir, your argument is not flowing logically.

You claim that "HCL (a gas at room temperature) and Pepsin ALONE can hydrolyze protein."

Am I the one who is not being logical here or you are the one arguing straw man?

1. Your statement which brought up the HCL and Pepsin for the digestion of proteins was "I can't even decipher what you have written. Hydrolysis of proteins happen in the body all the time. It involves water, acid and enzymes."

- Now, I responded by saying this only happens in the stomach. Why bring up gaseous state argument for HCL?
(a) Please, tell us, is the HCL in the stomach a gas or in the gaseous state or a solution?
(b)Tell us, is the stomach's temperature the same as room temperature?

I must say, sir, your inability to decipher is really a huge setback

sinequanon:

Then you ask for a link that says water is "involved in the digestion of protein". There is no reason for any article to make such a vague statement.

So you know it is vague, but you made it anyway.

sinequanon:

Why have you suddenly switched from "hydrolysis" to "digestion"? The involvement of water in hydrolysis is as per the definition I gave you.

Hydrolysis is a reaction that breaks down a molecule using the elements of water.

You want a link to this fact?

Digestion is a hydrolytic process. This is why I have been hammering your field of study. You can't keep talking about the things you have little or no knowledge about.

I want you to read this quote, maybe you'll catch a clue that hydrolysis is not just about water and it doesn't happen to all compounds or molecules too.

"Hydrolyzed protein is a protein that has been hydrolyzed or broken down into its component amino acids. While there are many means of achieving this, two of the most common methods are prolonged boiling in a strong acid (acid-HVP) or strong base or using an enzyme such as pancreatic protease to simulate the naturally occurring hydrolytic process"

Please show me where it is written that water hydrolyzed the protein. They said the most common methods of hydrolyzing protein to boil it in Strong acids or bases. Did you see water there? Still, note that acids don't contain water

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrolyzed_protein

sinequanon:


Chief, you are repeating some basic stuff that nobody is arguing about, but your earlier incorrect supposition that you could hydrolyze protein with HCL and an enzyme alone actually demonstrates the problem nicely. Water HAS TO BE INVOLVED as per the definition I gave.

Look bro, just tell me what your area of study is, so I can know how to address this matter. I still maintain, you only need HCL and Pepsin to digest protein in the stomach. There's no water involved. And don't even think water is involved because HCL is a liquid.

sinequanon:

The word "involved" covers "reactant" and ALL other situations.

This is science, the word involved may have been involved when you are looking at the English, but with Chemically and Biochemically related syntax, it is very inappropriate. Reactants, products, etc are more appropriate for chemical reaction description than "involve"

sinequanon:

I am not. You are repeating basic things that nobody is arguing about, without acknowledging that your own terminology has led you astray into believing that you can hydrolyze protein with HCL and an enzyme alone.

It's not my terminology, please do some research and tell me where water is needed for the digestion of proteins in the stomach. Please note that Acid is a solution, it doesn't mean it contains water.

In a solution of acid, OH & H ions are loosely connected by other forces, while in water, OH and H are covalently bonded together. This makes an acidic solution different from water.

Also, An acid is regarded as an aqueous solution, while water is a liquid. So acids do not contain water, it only contains OH, H ions. Don't be mistaken

sinequanon:

Chief, is it anti-knowledge for me to ignore this truism? (While you ignore the substantive point)

Truism as per the use in sciences? There's nothing as truism where our discussion is concerned. WQe are talking about sciences here. Not just English.

butterflyl1on:


Is 600 years the millions of years it allegedly took evolution to occur? Protein does not exist in water but breaks down in water very slowly. The entire break down takes that long and it's a process which culminates within a 600 year period. This nullifies evolution rather than support it.

It could be more than millions if you consider evolution. 600 years for one bond of protein that contains 10 thousand bonds and an organism that contains 1000 proteins.

That's 600 X 10000 X 1000 = 6 billion years for an organism to melt back into amino acids.

And the constant absence of water will mean that the process will have to start again. That is supposing I am the organism in question, if I enter water today, I must remain there for 6 billion years to melt into amino acids. If I leave the water tomorrow and enter next tomorrow, the 6 billion years will start counting from next tomorrow again. That makes it impossible for water to ever hydrolyze protein under natural conditions. And since evolution took place under natural conditions, then evolution is very very viable and hydrolysis of proteins is impossible.

sinequanon:


And?



Nope. Argue the facts.

Hydrolysis is a reaction that breaks down a molecule using the elements of water. That is the sense in which "water is involved". The language a chemist would use depends on the situation. If it was a peer reviewed paper, he would have to explain precisely the word "involved".

Oga, water can be involved in hydrolysis, I didn't say it cannot. But so can Acids and Bases, not water alone. And when acids and bases are hydrolyzing, water is not necessarily a reactant there.

Now, the fact is water does not hydrolyze all compounds, acids and bases can also hydrolyze compounds. This is the case when it comes to proteins. Why are you becoming anti-knowledge for goodness sake?

Whether he explains or not, it is non-academical for a chemist to use "involve" when talking scientifically.

The conditions for hydrolyzing must be met before it even starts at all.

sinequanon:


You are confusing yourself by conflating the argument and my rebuttal of a statement made by Akin1212. In doing so, I was not defending anybody else's argument. I don't "takes sides and work backwards" when I debate.

You are wrong. You cannot hydrolyze protein with HCL and pepsin alone.

Protein digestion depends on HCL(for hydrolysis) and Pepsin(Proteolysis) in the stomach alone. Hcl denatures the protein and also provides an acidic environment for Pepsin and enzymes break the bonds. Water has no input.

If you disagree, give me credible links that say water is involved in the digestion of proteins

Water is needed in the body for many things such movement of molecules, regulation of temperature etc etc etc, but for breaking down protein? NO. CAPITAL NO.

sinequanon:


When chemists talk about water being "involved" or a "water molecule being added", they don't mean that the protein reacted directly with water. They may even talk of a compound "losing a water molecule", which would make no sense at all if you interpreted it the way you are doing.

Water does not hydrolyze all compounds, water also hydrates.

The conditions allowed for hydrolysis must be met before it takes place. If the conditions are not met, nothing will happen.

It is not automatic. Hydrolysis is not automatic. Water can hydrate or hydrolyze depending on the conditions met.

Can I know your area of study before we continue? Chemists don't use the language "water is involved," we are not confusionists. There specific scientific languages you use in science. They either use words like, reacted, added, eliminated, and produced. What do you mean by involved in science?

sinequanon:


I can't even decipher what you have written. Hydrolysis of proteins happen in the body all the time. It involves water, acid and enzymes.

As for the "prevention of the process of evolution taking place", that has nothing to do with the statement that "hydrolysis of proteins does not involve water"!

1. Now you are contradicting yourself. You said hydrolysis of water only take place slowly and takes several hundreds of years. This means it cannot happen in anybody's lifetime. Which inturn means it is impossible.

2.Then you said it can be made fast by using enzymes, I agree with this. But concerning he arguments of Akin1212 and DoctorAlien, they were arguing in respect to the formation of body proteins during evolution. DoctorAlien said proteins would break down if water was present, hence evolution cannot be true. This means if proteins are formed now now, then they would break down again in the presence of water.

3. Akin1212 said water cannot break down protein. I remember he said water can be added to more water. And according to the facts conceded to by you that it may take 700 years, then it means it is impossible, and hence evolution can take place.

4. Hydrolysis of edible proteins that takes place in the body is called digestion and it solely depends on HCL and Pepsin alone. Wheter water is present or not.

So evolution is related to the hydrolysis of proteins. That was the argument

sinequanon:


That is not a logical argument. I said that hydro- gives you a clue.

You clearly don't understand what hydrolysis means. Water is involved whether you use an acid or a base.

But irrespective of the clue, the FACT is that hydro does not mean water is involved in hydrolysis. It may mean acid and bases, given that these substances are aqueous solutions. But that's not the argument.

We are talking about water directly. And please let me remind you, they were not arguing about hydrolysis in general, they were arguing "hydrolysis of proteins."

Water do not hydrolyse all compounds readily.

sinequanon:


Chief, the reaction takes a matter of hours with enzymes. These enzymes catalyze the reaction.

Also, he refers to the hydrolysis of protein, himself, and says that it doesn't involve water!

1. So sir, in light of enzymes, can you give me one natural enzyme that would make this hydrolysis possible under natural conditions that would prevent the process of evolution to take place? I would really appreciate that

2. If a reaction takes place naturally and it takes 600 years to break one bond out of thousands of bonds, say for instance 1000 bonds. It means it would take 700 thousand years to hydrolyze just one protein out of like say 10 thousand proteins in one person or animal. This means it would take 7 billion years for one animal to melt into amino acids.

3. In light of this obvious facts, Akin1212 is outrightly correct about his words. I believe he is really a Biochemist and he is very correct.

butterflyl1on:



Two amino acids can react in a condensation reaction to form a peptide bond and release water. Yet he says water isn't involved?

Last time I checked long chains of amino acids are also called proteins. So which part does not Involve water?

A peptide bond can be broken by hydrolysis (the addition of water). In the presence of water they will break down. The process is extremely slow, with the half life at 25C of between 350 and 600 years per bond.

So how is water not involved?

Please sir, may I ask if you know what brought about this protein hydrolysis talk? I have read the posts of these guys. Your contribution shows you have not done that.

Akin1212 did not say water is not eliminated in the condensation reactions of amino acids. And when water is eliminated in condensation reactions, it is not said to be involved, it is a by-product instead.

I'm glad you said 600 years, DoctorAlien said evolution cannot take place because protein cannot exist in water, he said the protein would break down into amino acids. But according to you now, we have seen that protein can remain intact for 600 years. AND THAT REALLY MEANS EVOLUTION IS POSSIBLE BASED ON YOUR FACTS.

sinequanon:


Water is involved in the hydrolysis of proteins.

His argument that such hydrolysis is too slow to be of consequence is flawed. In practice, enzymes are involved, which speed up the hydrolysis. Also, the difficulty in the hydrolysis has a lot to do with exposing the bonds, as proteins tend to wind around themselves.

"Hydro" should give you a clue the water is involved. Sorry, but his statement was a gaffe of major proportions.

1. He is not wrong sir. Do you agree with me that a reaction that is as slow as the hydrolysis of proteins which may take up 700 years will never complete? Given that nobody will stay that long to observe it.

2. You did not obviously investigate the genesis of the protein hydrolysis brouhaha. I investigated and this was what happened.
DoctorAlien said the fact that evolution proposed that proteins were built from amino acids in the presence of water falsifies evolution because in the presence of water proteins will be hydrolyzed back to amino acids.
- But due to the information we have now, it is possible for proteins to remain intact for 700 years in the presence of water. Do you agree?

3. So I conclude that Akin1212 is not wrong because nobody or no protein will be immersed in water for 700 years, hence evolution is viable.

4. Hydro doesn't mean water is involved. Acids and bases also break down proteins into amino acids and it is still called hydrolysis.

Sir, you are the one making a gaffe of major proportions here.

butterflyl1on:


Watch him begin dropping insults on you for his blatant ignorant knowledge

Water isn't involved in hydrolysis indeed.

He didn't say water is not involved in hydrolysis, you don't have to this. He said water is not involved in the hydrolysis of Proteins. These are two different things.

Please let's ascertain something. We can actually do a research on the veracity of the claims of Akin1212 and DoctorAlien.

I have understood both of their views on the hydrolysis of protein by water.

But before I dab in, I'll like to know what your area of study is @DoctorAlien, since Akin's field has been established already.

mhizesther:
It happened today.....thankfully, it's a good one... there's this woman in my church, she's been having issues conceiving.. then today, I was just sitting... then it happened again.. I felt the vibration and I saw the image, the woman carrying a baby... I love this one...

It's starting to seem like Nollywood movies.

iamnlia:
I would have loved to gloat too but I tell myself that I know nothing so that I can know more.

You studied biochemistry?
I finished it in 200 and 300 levels before moving above to chemical pathology.

There's no way you could have finished Biochemistry in 200 and 300 level, we still have professors who are still studying it. You only touched a part of it.

I also studied Physiology back then in 200 level. But I cannot claim I studied it, I only did a course in Physiology.

iamnlia:

Elongated skulls from Peru which have mitochondrial DNA with mutations unknown in any human, primate, or animal known

It's just a new mutation, it doesn't make the animal or the body of the fossil record an alien.

mu·ta·tion [myoo táysh'n]
(plural mu·ta·tions)
noun
1. change in genetic material: a random change in a gene or chromosome resulting in a new trait or characteristic that can be inherited. Mutation can be a source of beneficial genetic variation, or it can be neutral or harmful in effect.

In other news, this same fossil record has been traced to European and Middle Eastern Origin. Read Bro, read.

Stop propagating lies, there are no magical beings anywhere.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/breaking-new-dna-testing-2000-year-old-elongated-paracas-skulls-changes-020914

iamnlia:

I would have loved to argue pseudoscience and clear the air on dmt but you can't comprehend.

The height I have reached in science cannot be compared to someone who instinctively believes in the existence of Aliens just because of certain structures that were erected in the days of old.

I am obviously more intelligent than you are based on your theories and postulations of Aliens. And your wrong understanding of evolution.

The only person explaining pseudoscience here is you, bro. Please carry books and read.

On DMT, there is no way you can know about it more than I do, I studied Biochemistry and it transverse and outclass whatever you study when evolution, genetics and science generally are concerned.

iamnlia:

Yes, there are fossil alien records.
Just Google.

Bring your facts here, let's see...

Niflheim:
@The General House


Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, who massively promoted this "dinosaur dung"(ancient aliens theory), does not even have a degree in Archaeology, but a degree in..........................................wait for it................................................sports information and communication!!!

LMAO

Optimist1998:
This is what happens when you study pseudoscientific books. You apparently become smart but spill out dumb things. Stop reading whatever book you're reading OP.

donnffd:


I am glad you well informed on the Darwinian Matter, but i am sorry to say but your figures seems to be off...

Even if homo-erectus went extinct 160,000years ago that doesnt mean homo-sapiens were born at that same time period

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/07/health/oldest-homo-sapiens-fossils-found/index.html

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/07/oldest-homo-sapiens-bones-ever-found-shake-foundations-of-the-human-story

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/world-s-oldest-homo-sapiens-fossils-found-morocco

I was careful to pick out credible and reliable sources as the names of the sites suggests...

Homo-sapiens have been around for atleast 300,000years, so if truly the homo-erectus went extinct later than that, then it means some sapiens lived along side with the erectus...

Now erectus evolved 1.9 million years ago, so somewhere along the line they produced the sapien line but we cant be exact on the timeframe.

I respect that you do know what you are talking about, but i dont see time as an issue here, it is not impossible for sapiens to have evolved those features from their ancestors in these time frame, not at all

You have time, I discovered this thread is a satire when she mentioned DMT is used to sense Aliens. What more is there to discuss.


I wonder why they became the supervisors of evolution. Evolution for one is not time-dependent. And it is slow.

iamnlia:

Once again, you can't produce facts.

Stone men cannot achieve that level of engineering.

Can't I produce facts? What about their brains, isn't that enough facts for you?

At least we found their fossil records, and we saw their skulls.

On the other hand, you're the one who does not have facts here. Where are your Aliens, are you one?

Do you have their fossil records?

Luckily for you and Fekwa, just like she pointed out, you have to HALLUCINATE before you can find Aliens. That's really ridiculous

iamnlia:

I will refrain from subjecting myself to your anti-research and abusive level of thinking.

If you really understood the use of language, you'd know that I simply compared the argument of rapid human evolution to a figurative possibility of shark evolution using the same standards.


I realized that either you don't know anything about ancient megalithic structures or you're averse to learning new things because an inquisitive mind would immediately start research on those aforementioned structures and not make some illiterate and bogus statements that they were built by Stone men.

If only you had supplied your own points instead of attacking my persona, I would have been happy to share information with you but now I'm reluctant to share with someone who can't make basic research and can't really comprehend English.

Seriously if I was close to you, I would have dented on your cheek a hot slap right now.

Are you illiterate or what? You are the one who does not understand the use of English language. Because if you do then you will know that figurative thinking(abstract) cannot be used as an analogy to literal(factual) thinking.

Besides, you didn't even compare, you stated that example as one of the faults of evolution, there's no need to be defensive now. You don't simply understand EVOLUTION. Don't be shy about it, you can't know everything.

And the human development is not rapid, we started 9-8 million years ago, stop spewing trash here. You don't know zilch about evolution.

If you see the truth as personal attacks on your persona, then please refrain. Because I can't also condone the abuse of science from a non-scientific persona.


I am bemused that you think "Stone men" cannot build. You have baseless claims just because you don't understand the process. Please refrain, I cannot continue discussing with an ignoramus myself.

You think I don't know about those structures and the controversies surrounding them that you and your companion decided to disturb us with?

However, it doesn't distort the phenomenon of evolution, deal with it bro.

Kaderayayomikun:
Errr...... MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO? You think the Sphinx was erected millions of years ago, or what are you talking about?

How can you say they do not have the brains? What makes you think you're smarter than them? The Greek philosophers are infinitely smarter than many ordinary people in the modern age. You mean the Egyptians couldn't have had the brains to erect the Sphinx like Plato couldn't have had the brain to write his books and develop his complex philosophy?

This is ridiculous

Many people have met God and encountered angels too. I guess their claims should be taken as true as well.

LMAO. Are you kidding me?! Ancient Sumerians knew about the DNA?!

It's very funny we both find her post hilarious as hell. I think she is just testing her satirical skills.

Fekwa:


Wait, you think the hominoid apes who lived millions of years ago erected structures like the Sphinx, the obelisks and Geobekli tepe? This is so funny.

I am certain the hominoids apes didn't erect those structures because they didn't have the tools or the brain to do that. Simple. How can you even argue this?

What's actually funny is that you are sure that the hominoids who lived couldn't have built it because you have their brain and you have tested the efficacy of the brain, right?

The only evidence science has is the fossils of the beings. We only postulate theories on the brain because of the size of the skulls we found. Nobody can measure how complex their brains were. We only know they were not as complex as ours. It doesn't mean they were dumb for Pete's sake.

Fekwa:

But lots of people have had encounters with aliens while using drugs like DMT? Lots of people have described life encounters with alien forms through altered states of consciousness and have expressed corroborative claims? A man named Phil Schneider had real encounters with grey aliens and even claimed to have shot one. His actual whistle blowing speeches are on YouTube for you to watch. Lots of people have stories of alien abductions. In fact the most striking story is that of Barney and Betty hill which you should read about. There have been literally thousands of sightings of UFOs post world war 2. There is drawings of UFOs in ancient art. Don't draw an analogy between my claim and the one theists make of God. In my case I have lots of evidence.

You just killed this discussion by mentioning N,N-Dimethyltryptamine, a psychedelic drug... Lol

If people have met Aliens when they are hallucinating, then I give up. I should not even be arguing this with you. Or you don't know you can also see God when you hallucinate? Lol .
All other claims you have up there are controversies. If they have encounters with Aliens let them bring these Aliens out in the public or shut the fuck_ up.

Your pieces of evidence are the same as theists pieces of evidence. It goes like "Something is somewhere, but we can't show you."

Fekwa:

The sumerians in their texts described the process by which the genetic manipulation was done. According to them, the second and third strands of our DNA were fused in order to allow for mixing of the genes of the primates and that of the alien species, because primate species had 48, while the genes by which were used to create us had 46 chromosomes. This was mentioned thousands of years before the field of genetics was found. Now our knowledge of genetics tells us the same thing. Humans have 2 chromosomes less than other primates.

Lo, this last one is funny. I think you high on DMT, N,N-Dimethyltryptamine

I think this is satire.

iamnlia:

Evolution is the change in heritable characteristics which is facilitated by the necessity to survive, right?
It's the biological system of an organism learning and unlearning.

There is evidence that sharks have been around for about 420 million years!. If by the standards of supposed human evolution, these sharks should walk and be amphibians,right? At least 420 million years ain't beans but they have evolved only a few body parts like the jaw because of the necessity to hunt and survive.

NO to the bolded above, This is an abuse of evolution. And a lot of you folks who don't understand zilch about evolution just go about spewing the wrong ideas you have about the whole process of Evolution.

It's very sad that you defined evolution correctly but you spoiled it with what you think personally about it. Now read carefully, please.

If evolution is the change in heritable characteristics over successive generations and influenced by the need to survive, then Sharks can never grow legs and walk. Why? Because nothing can walk in water which is their natural habitat.
They will only develop body parts that will make them survive in their natural habitats, I'm glad you mentioned that. We are not talking about magic here. You need to understand evolution clearly. Hope you are following?

Evolution is not the transformation of biological classes to another(Pisces to Amphibians). It is the formation of species, that's why you cannot understand evolution without understanding speciation.

iamnlia:

The humanoids form seemingly received a brand new brain and a complete overhaul when you compare us to the earlier humanoids, they teach in schools that our ancestors were cavemen and worked with stones and sticks but can't explain structures built over 10,000 years ago like pyramids of Giza and the rest, Goebekli Tepe is 13,000 years! Which cavemen built those?

How do you want structures to be explained? The structures were built, so be it, damn it!!! The humanoids built it, what's hard there? The people of the future will be more developed than we are today, does it mean we are not developed? I don't know what's hard to think there. You are just too lazy to think it out, I guess.

Whether we received a new brain or not, the primates before us also had brains. So they could have built the structures with the brain they had, they survived for a long time too. Some of them could have been intelligent than others. Just like it is today, I am still surprised at the level of some people's stupidity.

iamnlia:

Summary is that evolution is very minute and happens over a span of time according to challenges to survival.
The next step in human evolution may be on a molecular level because we are the perfect biological specie.

Yes, exactly. Evolution is slow and that's why you or anyone cannot measure it. You should really understand it than try to claim you do.

It's very obvious you don't know more than monkey turning to humans when it comes to evolution. That's not how it works bro. Use this link, please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Fekwa:


My beliefs are grounded in evidence and I have done my best to present these evidences, except if you haven't read my responses on this thread.

SIGH. Fermi's paradox is one. I have to admit this particular question is very amusing, for obvious reasons.

I've read more about evolution that you possibly have. Why don't you challenge all the points I have been making on this thread and support your arguments with proof.

You have not provided any evidence, you have only provided controversies. Science is not a closed ideology that will reject the possibilities of the existence of Aliens.

And if you have clear pieces of evidence, then saying you believe is totally wrong, you should have claimed you know.

I don't know why you would assume that the Hominoidea(Apes) who lived millions of years couldn't have erected the structures that seem like mysteries to you.

You have simply assumed that there were some structures that couldn't have been possible if Aliens did not exist. How did you arrive at this conclusion? What gave you the intuition that the Hominoids who lived before us couldn't have erected them?

This is just another controversial claim along with the ones who have come before you. It is not scientific.

Claiming there are unseen Aliens is the same as claiming there is God somewhere. Aliens should appear to me in my room or to us in Nigeria or Ghana and not just the US. Or do we have to summon them before they come?

This makes a lot of sense when you compare the skeletons and fossils of Homo-erectus which mainstream science tells us we evolved from and recognize the massive transformational changes that couldn't possibly have occurred through evolution and definitely not during such space of time.

I am still waiting for the evidence you have provided for your postulations of the efficacy of time when it comes to evolution.

I believe that at a certain point in history, aliens manipulated the genes of Homo-Erectus and Homo-Neanderthals, did some mixing and hence humans were created.

Also, I am waiting for the evidence you have for this genetic manipulation you claim or believe that extraterrestrial bodies carried out to create humans.


Besides, I did not read about evolution. I studied it and I am still studying Genetics, under the umbrella of Biochemistry. So I doubt that you know evolution as I do or more.

iamnlia:
I believe that aliens came to the earth because of the knowledge possessed by the ancients, archeological evidence and also other evidence.

1. Oblong shaped skulls from Peru.

2. The Sumerian tablets, the Sumerian depiction of the planetary systems, their advanced knowledge of geometry.

3. Megalithic sites like Maccu Picu, The Giza Pyramids, Stonehenge, Goebekli Tepe and many others I can't remember. The scale of precise geometry is just mind boggling.

4. Evolution is a very slow process and 2.5 million years is relatively small for the drastic changes from earlier humanoids, the biggest evidence being the giant leap in intelligence. We literally graduated from earlier humanoids to the most compete and perfect life forms in this realm.

Another case is that if it was all evolution, there would still be humanoid life forms resembling the erectus and hominis at this time but there isn't a single one, it's as if there was a total sharp curve in human biology instead of slow and steady rising evolution.

Are you specifically telling us what evolution of the human race would have turned out to be? Have you seen instances of evolutionary processes before?

Intelligent people have pointed it out that it takes millions of years. Just like the Hominini(humans) diverted from the Gorrilini(gorillas) some 9 million years ago. What gave you the intuition that 9 million years is too small for incredible changes?

I think the topic of evolution and what it really means needs to be revisited.

Thank you.