₦airaland Forum

duduspace:
You have totally missed the point, Davidylan and you are a perfect example of what your holy book says about too much knowledge making one mad even though in your case it is more like too much biased use of incomplete knowledge making you mad (forgive me the pun)

1. You seem more interested in getting a fact right than understanding the implication of that fact in the Global picture. Huxley does not need to accept that he got a fact wrong, the fact is that he can have his doubts about the legitimacy of any particular research work. Besides what more do you want?the title of this post already indicates that he has considered the possibility that the research work you quoted could be plausible and he doesn't need to own up to anything.

2. What exactly are you saying here? I am sure Huxley would agree that scientific fact usually arise out of questions which lead to hypotheses and theory which are then tested and where did you hear of a God called science? possibly another one you created. Huxley has never said science knows everything afterall science is an ongoing process but is your God an ungoing process? you claim your God knows everything or whatever but you don't know everything so how can you be sure he knows everything or what "everything" is? Huxley never claimed to know everything apart from the fact that the creation story in your bible is utter balderdash.

3. He asked a question of how old you beleive the earth to be which you have not answered and you should be happy that he is asking you for Scientific articles because he probably knows that you will get them somehow even though it is rather unfortunate that you cannot place those findings within the bigger picture of their implications due to your myopic view distorted by your hypocrisy into proving a point at all costs


@Huxley

Thank you for at least making him accept the fact that the earth is more than the 3000 or whatever number of years the creation story of the bible seems to suggest, he will have to come up with his own holy book now (something like Dylan's Bible perhaps) because I'm sure his pastor will drive him away from his church if he reads this (except of course if his pastor is as confused and hypocritical as he is).

I do wonder how he will explain the 7 day creation story in light of his accepting the old earth view of the earth. I'm sure by then he will seek to discredit the same article he has cited now, what a muppet.

davidylan:
Huxley you dont seem to have gotten my point AT ALL . . .

look again at the evolutionary tree Darwin left us . . . it says we ALL (including animals) evolved from a single ancestor - the protist.

1. Well how come you dont share mtDNA with a cockroach?

davidylan:
2. How come ONLY ONE WOMAN EVOLVED? Was there only ONE protist existing at a single point in time?

Your explanation fits perfectly with the creation narrative (which of course you debunk) but does not square with the concept of evolution . . . that is the issue. Pls address it and oh pls provide scientific publications . . . dont tell us faabu here.

davidylan:
1. Note how he completely sidesteps the pointed questions above.

2. The theory of evolution predicted human ancestory came from Africa . . . based on NO scientific evidence at all.

3. If this is the case, did protists ONLY exist in Africa? why did African protists BUT NOT THE ONES IN China, USA, Europe lead to humans?

4. Why do we not share mtDNA with fish?

5. If this is not evidence for evolution then WHY THE HECK DID YOU POST IT? Cant you find A SINGLE PAPER showing proof of evolution? Isnt that what you started bleating about in your first post?

My friend we need answers and fast pls.

davidylan:
Where are the answers Huxley? why are they taking so long? I thought there was a "wealth of material" (note it doesnt say "wealth of evidence"?

https://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j82/davidylan/tree_o_life.jpg

See Darwin's tree here just to speed up your thinking process. How come we dont share mtDNA with protists by the way? Do we share mtDNA with fishes too? Surely there must be some scientific link to prove these tree huh?

davidylan:
Pls kindly help me ask - how is this concrete evidence of evolution? Did only one human evolve and then we multiplied from her? Why did 3-5 women not evolve at the same time? If, as darwin postulates, man evolved slowly from protists . . . did only one protist exist and produced JUST ONE WOMAN from which we all descended? Weren't there a lot of protists available then?

why did EVERY HUMAN, regardless of fundamental genomic differences, environmental differences, climatic differences and differences in selection pressure all evolve EXACTLY the same FEATURES at EXACTLY the SAME PERIOD of time? If evolution were indeed true, why do we all have the same intricate brain patterns, eye structure and circulatory system? Should we not see a few people who are 98% close to the complete human we see today?

Dont let these idiots fool you, they dont know that evolution is true themselves . . . but anything to attack christianity (falsely packaged as religion) is fair game to them. It doesnt matter how completely unintelligent they sound doing so.

davidylan:
Pls kindly help me ask - how is this concrete evidence of evolution? Did only one human evolve and then we multiplied from her? Why did 3-5 women not evolve at the same time? If, as darwin postulates, man evolved slowly from protists . . . did only one protist exist and produced JUST ONE WOMAN from which we all descended? Wheren't there a lot of protists available then?

Do you see stupidity at play here folks?

SegzyJoe:
I think replying this guy is the only reason he keeps coming with different topics to insult the sensibility of Nigerian christians on this forum. Ordinarily, a civilize human being even though from Cameroon should know that speaking blasphemy against the faith of others is insulting their collective belief and psychic. if he thinks people should not serve God again, the best place to start that campaign should be his own country not Nigeria. If you re runing a campaign and speaking evil against the faith of a people on a website that millions of their future generations and religion adherent are present, then it is as good as ridiculing their faith and collective aspiration, it is even so bad when it is a fact that you re not even a Nigerian that share their collective views on religious issues.

If a Nigerian provides you opportunity to hear your views without subscription, that does not mean you should use the same forum to insult our collective intelligence, I read from one of your post how the spread of christianity in Nigeria disgusted you, as if that is not enough you have the audacity to be talking fallacies concerning the christian faith as if you re a kind of authority on the Christian faith and not a retarded evolutionalist. Words like these have been said else where concering Islamic faith and religious crisis was the outcome of such foolish utterances. Isn't religion a personal issue? If you don't believe Jesus, must you insult those that believe Him?

davidylan:
Absurd - because i've always been a proponent of an old earth. I dont believe the earth is only 6000 yrs old.

Genesis DOES NOT describe the creation of the earth . . . it describes the RE-CREATION of the earth as we know it today. Its not too difficult to see that.

Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

- When was this "begining"?

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

- in essence, the earth was already in existence way before man stepped foot on it.

davidylan:
Sorry to say but the above is daft reasoning. So because scientists are "researching evolution" means it must be true?
There are theologians also debating Genesis 1, do you also believe creationism is now true?

Fossils are the biggest problem TTE has today, because rather than show a gradual evolving of organisms, we have a sudden explosion of highly complex and diverse organisms. What was a baboon like before it evolved into what it is today? Why does a fern look exactly the same over 100 million yrs after?

Sorry, the shrimp of 400 million yrs ago is the same as that of today . . . even scientists are not bothering to contest that AT ALL so pls spare us the hare-brained nonsense you're spewing.

And what exactly is going on in those labs that prove evolution? perhaps you have your secret labs.

Quote from: huxley on Today at 02:06:37 AM
This is just a plain travesty of reasoning. Where does he get this figure from? The Shrimp has NOT NOT NOT been around for 400 million years. You cannot base you argument on so fallacious a claim and think you can get away with it. This is simply dishonest and wrong.

You just like to shout anyhow . . . pls see below:

Fossilised shrimp show earliest group behaviour

The conga was the world's first dance, it seems. A newly discovered caravan of crustaceans from half a billion years ago shows that group behaviour evolved not long after animals themselves.

Palaeontologists led by Hou Xian-Guang, of Yunnan University, China, discovered fossilised chains of up to 20 crustaceans linked head-to-toe, the earliest record of any collective animal behaviour and perhaps an adaptation to a migratory ocean lifestyle.

"It's showing that, 525 million years ago, we've got really quite sophisticated and potentially complex interaction between different animals," says Derek Siveter, of the University of Oxford, who analysed the fossil along with colleagues at the University of Leicester, UK.

and oh note how the SCIENTISTS (you know those gods you look up to) talk about "sophisticated and complex interactions" between mere crustaceans 525 million yrs ago . . . when they were supposed to have been evolving no? Do we need more evidence that these collection of deluded folks dont really know what they are talking about? Huxley, trying telling the paleontologists in china that they are lying . . .

davidylan:
You just like to shout anyhow . . . pls see below:

Fossilised shrimp show earliest group behaviour

The conga was the world's first dance, it seems. A newly discovered caravan of crustaceans from half a billion years ago shows that group behaviour evolved not long after animals themselves.

Palaeontologists led by Hou Xian-Guang, of Yunnan University, China, discovered fossilised chains of up to 20 crustaceans linked head-to-toe, the earliest record of any collective animal behaviour and perhaps an adaptation to a migratory ocean lifestyle.

"It's showing that, 525 million years ago, we've got really quite sophisticated and potentially complex interaction between different animals," says Derek Siveter, of the University of Oxford, who analysed the fossil along with colleagues at the University of Leicester, UK.

and oh note how the SCIENTISTS (you know those gods you look up to) talk about "sophisticated and complex interactions" between mere crustaceans 525 million yrs ago . . . when they were supposed to have been evolving no? Do we need more evidence that these collection of deluded folks dont really know what they are talking about? Huxley, trying telling the paleontologists in china that they are lying . . .

davidylan:
Dude, you cant simply disagree with science when it suits you . . . you have NEVER provided valid scientific papers to back up your own wishy washy claims, prefering to give us youtube.com instead.

That article was published in Science AAAS with an impact factor of 30.927, 1 clear point better than Nature. I'm sure you know it takes more than 1 yr and up to 3 levels of independent peer review to get your paper accepted for publication in Nature alone. If they had problems with the date it would not have been published.

Dude keep quiet when ur ignorance is corrected.

DOI: 10.1126/science.1162794

Dude . . . you cant keep recycling around your own stupidity and forcing us to answer your own queries. You are the one who swears by the gods of science not me, you're the one who claims fossils prove evolution is true not me . . . answer your own question.

Thou hypocrite, stop bothering to ask for scientific peer-reviewed articles when all you can provide is talkorigins and youtube.com

dude, your own duplicity makes me sick. You who swears by the gods of science DID NOT know that there were crustaceans during the cambrian period . . . infact you labelled me dishonest and fraudulent for even suggesting what had already been published since the summer of 2008.

You're merely trying to mitigate the disaster that your own ignorance has exposed you to. I dont disaprove of science in general if not i wont be in the field at all. What i find despicable is the fact that many of you clueless bufoons who cant EVEN READ THAT SCIENCE instead prefering to rummage through youtube links stay here bellowing hot air.

Science is not flawless . . . but slowly it is begining to prove wrong the very pillars that you hold unto.

davidylan:
I already do and you know that . . . that is why i refer you to Science papers instead of youtube like you do. Where you arguing from facts and data earlier when you LIED IN BOLD that crustaceans didnt exist 400 million yrs ago?

much of the expert links has come from me . . . of course unless you consider youtube "learned sources".

davidylan:
Sorry to say but the above is daft reasoning. So because scientists are "researching evolution" means it must be true?
There are theologians also debating Genesis 1, do you also believe creationism is now true?

Fossils are the biggest problem TTE has today, because rather than show a gradual evolving of organisms, we have a sudden explosion of highly complex and diverse organisms. What was a baboon like before it evolved into what it is today? Why does a fern look exactly the same over 100 million yrs after?

Sorry, the shrimp of 400 million yrs ago is the same as that of today . . . even scientists are not bothering to contest that AT ALL so pls spare us the hare-brained nonsense you're spewing.

And what exactly is going on in those labs that prove evolution? perhaps you have your secret labs.

davidylan:
dude, your own duplicity makes me sick. You who swears by the gods of science DID NOT know that there were crustaceans during the cambrian period . . . infact you labelled me dishonest and fraudulent for even suggesting what had already been published since the summer of 2008.

You're merely trying to mitigate the disaster that your own ignorance has exposed you to. I dont disaprove of science in general if not i wont be in the field at all. What i find despicable is the fact that many of you clueless bufoons who cant EVEN READ THAT SCIENCE instead prefering to rummage through youtube links stay here bellowing hot air.

Science is not flawless . . . but slowly it is begining to prove wrong the very pillars that you hold unto.

davidylan:
Dude, you cant simply disagree with science when it suits you . . . you have NEVER provided valid scientific papers to back up your own wishy washy claims, prefering to give us youtube.com instead.

1. That article was published in Science AAAS with an impact factor of 30.927, 1 clear point better than Nature. I'm sure you know it takes more than 1 yr and up to 3 levels of independent peer review to get your paper accepted for publication in Nature alone. If they had problems with the date it would not have been published.

2. Only one of 4 of the researchers was Chinese, the other 3 were British.

Dude keep quiet when ur ignorance is corrected.

DOI: 10.1126/science.1162794

davidylan:
Dude, you cant simply disagree with science when it suits you . . . you have NEVER provided valid scientific papers to back up your own wishy washy claims, prefering to give us youtube.com instead.

That article was published in Science AAAS with an impact factor of 30.927, 1 clear point better than Nature. I'm sure you know it takes more than 1 yr and up to 3 levels of independent peer review to get your paper accepted for publication in Nature alone. If they had problems with the date it would not have been published.

Dude keep quiet when ur ignorance is corrected.

DOI: 10.1126/science.1162794

ots:
He has not seen failure,disappointment

ohaechesi:
Thats right

davidylan:
You just like to shout anyhow . . . pls see below:

Fossilised shrimp show earliest group behaviour

The conga was the world's first dance, it seems. A newly discovered caravan of crustaceans from half a billion years ago shows that group behaviour evolved not long after animals themselves.

Palaeontologists led by Hou Xian-Guang, of Yunnan University, China, discovered fossilised chains of up to 20 crustaceans linked head-to-toe, the earliest record of any collective animal behaviour and perhaps an adaptation to a migratory ocean lifestyle.

"It's showing that, 525 million years ago, we've got really quite sophisticated and potentially complex interaction between different animals," says Derek Siveter, of the University of Oxford, who analysed the fossil along with colleagues at the University of Leicester, UK.

and oh note how the SCIENTISTS (you know those gods you look up to) talk about "sophisticated and complex interactions" between mere crustaceans 525 million yrs ago . . . when they were supposed to have been evolving no? Do we need more evidence that these collection of deluded folks dont really know what they are talking about? Huxley, trying telling the paleontologists in china that they are lying . . .

m_nwankwo:
I am not sure you have read my posts. I believe in God and have a plethora of experiences in that connection. I have only said that biological evolution is true and not incompatible with the existence of God. It is ok if you disagree with my views but it is unnecessary to give names to people whose views are contrarily to yours. I am not the best molecular biologist but I am a very good one. Stay blessed.

noetic:
is this ur way of saying thank you for correcting ur rubbish and unintelligent posers about Genesis account of creationism?.

by asking simple cogent questions, we will collectively come to the overall conclusion of the untenability of the evolution lie.
And once again i ask u, how does me answering ur posers elucidate on either the theory of evolution or the creation belief.
I refuse to be distracted.

PS: I have educated ur concerns on the Genesis account of creation, why dont u do the same on the origin and evolution of life.
by doing that we might make progress here.

wirinet:
I decided to respond to this thread again because i felt that you cannot squeeze water from a stone no matter how long and hard you try, that is referring to davidylan and co. You can explain evolution to them a thousand times and they would still say you have not answered a single question there are raising.

But i am responding now because of the above statement by huxley whom i respect very much, and a few others. Scientist have very good and sound postulations about the origin of live on earth and the process being repeated on  other planets. It had been dealt with extensively by my mentor - Carl Sagan. But for those who do not know here is my explanation.

Before I explain the naturalistic origin of life as generally accepted by scientists, we have to agree on the definition of life. So What Is Life?

I think the problem we have is that different people has a different definition of life. We have spiritual life, biological life, physical life, and so on. The one we are interested in is biological or organic life. I have no definition or understanding of spiritual life.

To me Life is a self contained system of molecules that is capable of duplicating itself from generation to generation. Put in another way it is organic molecules with the potential of forming self reproducing systems. The basic unit of life is The DNA. If you agree with me on the definition of life, we can then move on to its origin, if not then our thought pattern will never cross.

Nucleic acids are the building blocks of life, as they are responsible for life's primary function - replication and growth. Nucleic acids and protein are polymers. Polymerization involves the loss of water. In constructing a nuceic acid, the phosphorous group losses -OH, allowing the phosphate group to link with ribose sugar. The ribose sugar and a base link when the ribose loses an -OH and the base loses one -H. The loss of these two water molecules leads to the formation of a nucleotide. A nucleotide links to the next nucleotide when it loses one -H and the other one loses one -OH. To make nucleic acids out of the original dehydration(loss of water ) is necessary.dehydration is also necessary to polymerize amino acids into proteins. Polymerization of carbohydrates also requires dehydration.

The original components (phospate group, ribose deoxyribose sugars, bases, amino acids, glocose, etc) are readily formed by by action of electrical charges meaning lightening  and ultraviolet radiation in the primitive atmosphere of the earth (see Miller's experiment). These compounds are readily dissolved in rainwater and brought down to the primitive ocean. There these compounds are protected from destruction from the same agents (electrical discharges and ultraviolet radiation) that created them. As the ocean accumulated these compounds, it slowly became a dilute "primordial soup" The dehydration process needed for polymerization most likely took place on the beaches and in tidal pools of the ancient ocean.

Experiments have shown that RNA is autocatalytic, which means that an RNA stand once formed by accidental dehydration can catalyze the formation of complimentary RNA chain. Short stands of RNA were probably the first self duplicating systems to come into being on the young earth.

In those viruses that use RNA as genetic material, the RNA strand is protected by a sheath of specific proteins. the association of RNA with proteins may have led to protein synthesis, and eventually to Primordial Life.

Mr Davidylan and co might argue that life could not have evolved on earth because the earth was too young. According to them 4.6 billion years is too short a time to make all the various type of proteins and nucleic acids needed to make even the simplest bacteria. But they forget the extreme power of natural environmental selection. Evolution was also operating at the molecular level: compounds that were not stable would not survive, leaving only the most stable compounds. It happens that nucleic acids are very stable compounds.

Let me give you an example how natural selection works. Imagine you want the entire King James Bible types by a wild monkey. What are the chances that such a monkey, typing at random will come up with the bible neatly typed without any error. The king James bible is said to contain about 6 million letter. The chances of success is almost nil. But if i introduce a control (the environment) what deletes any wrong letter the monkey would type, the probability would certainly be 1.  And typing at one letter per second and assuming an average of 13 errors per letter, the monkey would produce the English Bible in 13 X 6,000,000 seconds, which equals 2 yrs and 6 months. That is how evolution by natural selection works.

i hope you people understand the origin of life and Evolution better now as i am exhausted.

huxley:
Yes, the human race is largely ignorant as to the naturalistic origin of life, but that is not to say that we shall for ever remain ignorant.  Secondly, the fact that we have no explanation for something or an event does not preclude making further useful prediction/theories about that something

noetic:
@ huxley
Again I ask. Are u an evolutionist? for the sake of this thread or is this another meaningless "googled" attack on the bible and creationism.
Cos if u are an avowed evolutionist, I suggest u start from my first poser to evolutionists. Here it is:

I will for the sake of ur effort address some of ur posers. . . . . . .but u need to let me know if u are an evolutionist or not, cos i m least interested in ur uninformed and bitter angst against GOD.
I dont have the habit of digressing issues. That narrative was uncalled for, that was why i didnt bother to go into full details, but merely made u aware.
unless u raise issues that warrant me explaining it, I dont intend to. U can always go to google as usual.

But for the sake of other viewers, it is pertinent i say this: Genesis 1 and 2 differ and compliment each other mainly in the narrative because of their subjects.
Gen 1 describes the creation from God`s view
and Genesis 2 from Adam and eve`s (human) view.  Genesis 1 is largely fulfilled in Genesis 2.
It never mentioned the physical manifestation of light replacing the spiritual light. I only expected u to objectively derive from common sense that since Genesis 1 says
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

(and like i said in my last post addressed to u, Genesis 1 was describing God`s view of creation)
Genesis 2 that u pasted told us none of these things God established in the spirit was manifested until rain fell and Adam toiled the soil.

I believe i have addressed ur concerns about light created in verse 3 by showing u a dictionary acknowledgement of spiritual light orchestrated by God`s spirit. So what are u talking about??I tink u can do better. Is this an acknowledgement of evolution`s fallacy and inability to tell us the origin of life?
please, keep living in ignorance disguised as knowledge.  
was the bible written for the residents of other planets? _{hisses continuously}
Just like the way the evolution concept was built to keep buttressing a big lie, u keep attempting to redefine concepts.
I have defined light for u as obtained in creationism. I have established here (and as ur quote from Genesis 2 shows)that from the human view of the creation, planting and harvesting did not take place until the physical manifestation of certain objects created in Genesis 1. e.g Rain

Why dont u read genesis 2 and have a glimpse of what i am saying?
I expect better from u, not this, considerin ur antecedents. It is either u are distorting the facts or u simply find it difficult to understand my simply illustrated points. Neither is good for an intellectual debate.

I said that the light created in verse 3 is buttressed by your dictionary definition of light. which is: spiritual illumination or awareness; enlightenment.
I also said:  I meant the physical manifestation of some of the things created Genesis 1, was being awaited as is seen in the afore-quoted part of genesis 2, detailing that no plant grew until rain fell. so what are u saying?
That the bible does not acknowledge the creation of the planets does not mean they dont exist. The bible is a succinct summary of God`s inspiration to man.
So can I ask, Does evolutionist inability to explain the origin of life imply that we all jumped here from space?
Guy, i will not give u the luxury of turning this into one of ur meaningless threads.
How does ur question objectively butresses any arguments u have for evolution? How does my answer to this question dispute the reality of creationism? please lets be objective and focussed here?
u and ur fellow evolutionists have said nothing about the origin of life as postulated by evolutionist, while i have given u creationist version of this. . . . . .which is relevant to the purpose the thread was intended,  ,  . . . . .until u do this I dont tink we are making progress.

ur first question makes sense but is very irrelevant,  . . ,  . . .I dont know how my answer reveals the fallacy and lies of evolution. . . . which is my only purpose of contributing to this thread.

ur second is both meaningless and irrelevant.  last time i checked this thread was meant to debate this
For all your meaningless postulations of evolution and indiscreet disregard for God`s word. . . . . . is this all ur knowledge comes to? . . . . . .RUBBISH

Quote from: huxley on Today at 01:53:45 AM
1) I don't know. And I don't think the scientific community have definitive answers yet, nor will it be possible to prove categorically where it came from

Good. Now we know that much of the posturing here has been largely in ignorance.

Quote from: huxley on Today at 01:53:45 AM
2) I don't quite understand this. What is intermediate lifeform? Can you explain?

Before the eye fully "evolved" to what it is now, what did it look like before? Before a goat became what we know of it today, what was it like mid-evolution?

davidylan:
You just like to shout anyhow . . . pls see below:

Fossilised shrimp show earliest group behaviour

The conga was the world's first dance, it seems. A newly discovered caravan of crustaceans from half a billion years ago shows that group behaviour evolved not long after animals themselves.

Palaeontologists led by Hou Xian-Guang, of Yunnan University, China, discovered fossilised chains of up to 20 crustaceans linked head-to-toe, the earliest record of any collective animal behaviour and perhaps an adaptation to a migratory ocean lifestyle.

"It's showing that, 525 million years ago, we've got really quite sophisticated and potentially complex interaction between different animals," says Derek Siveter, of the University of Oxford, who analysed the fossil along with colleagues at the University of Leicester, UK.

and oh note how the SCIENTISTS (you know those gods you look up to) talk about "sophisticated and complex interactions" between mere crustaceans 525 million yrs ago . . . when they were supposed to have been evolving no? Do we need more evidence that these collection of deluded folks dont really know what they are talking about? Huxley, trying telling the paleontologists in china that they are lying . . .

davidylan:
Sorry to say but the above is daft reasoning. So because scientists are "researching evolution" means it must be true?
There are theologians also debating Genesis 1, do you also believe creationism is now true?

Fossils are the biggest problem TTE has today, because rather than show a gradual evolving of organisms, we have a sudden explosion of highly complex and diverse organisms. What was a baboon like before it evolved into what it is today? Why does a fern look exactly the same over 100 million yrs after?

Sorry, the shrimp of 400 million yrs ago is the same as that of today . . . even scientists are not bothering to contest that AT ALL so pls spare us the hare-brained nonsense you're spewing.

And what exactly is going on in those labs that prove evolution? perhaps you have your secret labs.

davidylan:
1. Where did the first life forms from which evolution derives its ideas come from?

2. Where are the intermediate life forms?

davidylan:
Answer my two earlier questions first. Its not the 3rd or 4th time you've used the same smokescreen to run away from serious debates on evolution that expose your own porous knowledge. I think TTE is a fraud, why then do you expect me to define it for you?

Would i be within limits to ask you to summarise the entire book of genesis too?

And where is bawomolo who shows up to discuss things he doesnt know?