₦airaland Forum

Caracta:
Besides, these rates depend on negotiations. They are not fixed. I look at how much you are bringing in and the duration.

Again, these rates are not fixed. We only have fixed limits or benchmarks. Get your facts right.

ooman:
I have found that you have problems with the definition of "species ".

There are about 11 different definitions, all not generally accepted definition of the term "species ", but each has its own strong point.

Next time you debate about what a species is, maybe you should first define how you understand the term.

check the definitions here

science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/Biol%203380/3380species.html

#No hard feelings. If you feel insulted, dont reply.

UyiIredia:
Not able to decide between bogus and genuine yet having an analytical mind. Just one more example of your confusion.

davidylan:
I think i like to deal with empirical evidence rather than mere speculation... which really is the basis for the current ideas about speciation. There have been studies with fungi spanning more than 25 years and yet has produced zero evidence for speciation.

the idea that speciation must be true because we can prove that micro-evolution occurs is mere fantasy at best. Yes plasmodium sp. (and a myriad of bacterial organisms) have shown evidence for drug resistance... but all these are evidence for random mutations but not speciation. The same can be said for HIV... random mutations may change certain phenotypic characteristics but they still remain HIV. Its like saying differences in coat color all of a sudden makes the Agouti mouse a different organism from the C57BL/6 mice.

I think we already have a standard, scientific definition for the term "species", trying to change it up to force-fit our preconceived notions is not helpful in any regard.

davidylan:
Not a problem. I just didnt want us to spend too much time speculating and pretending that this is equivalent to fact.

davidylan:
Rather than wasting time talking in circles, can you provide one example where speciation has actually been observed empirically? thanks.

davidylan:
I think the main point is that all these do not produce new distinct species. That is the fundamental problem.

UyiIredia:
What about death driving selection ? Listing bogus types of the same bogus concept isn't going to work. Random mutation and NS are the primary mechanisms listed as driving evolution so switching focus won't work here. Try another tactic.

UyiIredia:
What about death driving selection ? Listing bogus types of the same bogus concept isn't going to work. Random mutation and NS are the primary mechanisms listed as driving evolution so switching focus won't work here. Try another tactic.

sinequanon:
With DNA, your supposed "code" can fork into two branches, and the two branches can remain compatible. Real code would crash immediately. Imagine if Microsoft and Oracle started maintaining code independently for a while, and then Oracle tried to run its software on Windows. It would crash. But with DNA, you can successfully crossbreed individuals from population which have long separated and evolved independently.

sinequanon:
ok, how about this..

..your response is the second most foolish thing I have read on Nairaland, after Evilbrain's dismal contribution.

Now, as for presentation, yes, I realize that presentation, not substance, is what persuades you. It would have saved a lot of time if you had simply said that at the beginning before whistling like a kettle.

AlfaSeltzer:
See the lies of evolutionist staring them back in the face. A book that was not addressing the origin of species, called itself what!? THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES.
Go figure.

sinequanon:
[s]You probably still don't understand...

Anyway, I actually see what is happening, here. You are someone who accepts everything that your "superiors" have told you. If it is in a science book or video, it is unquestionable. Just like a Christian takes what is in the Bible to be unquestionable.
[/s]

sinequanon:
So because it is LABELED a theory, it is proven.
"Darwin's Theory" is a title. I used the title. My point is that the assertion by that title is only an hypothesis.

sinequanon:
That is why Darwin's theory of evolution is only an hypothesis that is being hyped as a proven fact.

Look at the reaction in most of the posts in this thread towards learning from your own environment. Most of the posters didn't even understand the point!

Evilbrain gave a totally generalized description of Darwin's hypothesis, but failed miserably at critiquing its application to the OP.

For him, the hypothesis itself is proof of itself, and he felt that he could substitute ANY OLD RUBBISH (a bird with a "brain touch", running around for no good reason!) into the hypothesis to make it stand up to a specific test. And he was serious. He really believed that some neural glitch appeared in the brain of some seagull and made it stamp on the ground for several minutes at a time, without knowing why. And this crazy behaviour was an advantage to a creature that is vulnerable on the ground and whose main diet is seafood.

A number of other posters were the same. They help to demonstrate why Darwin's hypothesis has not been properly tested. They accept ANY OLD RUBBISH as validation! The thread has done its job in discovering that the motives of most atheists are political, but dressed up in ignorant bandying of scientific terms and hypotheses.

The psychology is that validation is in fact irrelevant for them. That is why they believe that regurgitating the assertions in Darwin's hypothesis is an answer to the OP -- count how many posters did just that. As long as there is something, ANYTHING, there that refutes a god, they are prepared to believe it. That is why I think hard atheism is a very weak position when assessing scientific hypotheses.

EvilBrain1:
Actually, in his Origin of the Species, Darwin was very clear that his theory didn't address where the first life came from. The man did really good science and it is amazing how much he got right at the first attempt.



Genetics has lead to a lot of surprises and new discoveries, but that is mainly because of the way scientists used to classify animals. Before, taxonomy was based mainly on anatomy morphology which lead to some mistakes due to things like convergent evolution where 2 unrelated species end up with similar features. Now that we can look directly at DNA, we've been able to rearrange the family tree and fix those problems. But the core theory of evolution hasn't changed that much since we added Mendelian inheritance and genetic drift to it.



As far as I know those horizontal links are mostly seen in unicellular life that shares DNA and the occasional hybrid species. There's also viral DNA that gets incorporated into that of higher animals such as humans.

Also, sea sponges are our cousins. Cucumbers are our more distant cousins. All living things known to man descended from a common ancestor and we share DNA even with bacteria.

sinequanon:
And what else do you think the thread is about?

I don't mean to be rude, but are you yet another person who didn't understand the OP?



ok, go and do that, then answer the OP.

UyiIredia:
What's there to dismantle ? Only fools will see anything to it. Random mutations spoils things and has never been seen to make a new feature and natural selection can't make a damn pin. It is over hyped by evolutionists blind to the facts. EvilBrains post there was just one case of evolutionary storytelling.

Kay17:
Predators are naturally smart. In my opinion, it can be accounted for intelligence. The seagulls have the ability to manipulate their environment and especially where there are rewards, the trait is useful and valuable enough to be passed on to the subsequent generations.

EvilBrain1:
First of all,the ToE doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life. It only deals with how life behaves and changes once it exists. Its a common misconception that many people have but its important you understand that.

Also, I would be very careful before proclaiming that something is impossible for science. If you look at the historical trend you'll see that its not in your favour. Simple things like cell phones would have looked like powerful witchcraft just a hundred or so years ago and the pace of technology is only increasing.

Plus we're already well underway to deciphering the origin of life. Its possible that that problem could even be solved in our lifetime. Watch the video. Its a bit outdated, but it will give you a fair idea of where the research is heading.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgQLyqWaCbA

sinequanon:
Theory of Evolution vs Theism is a false dichotomy.

What I am really after here is for some Darwinist to demonstrate that they apply their own experience to their belief, and don't just swallow what they have been told (brainwashed with) -- by..

1. Noticing behaviours around them in their everyday lives, like the seagull behaviour.

2. Having the presence of mind to question it.

3. Asking how the Theory of Evolution applies.

Microflux:
bruh normally is b4 the question. So its hormone

Microflux:
u missed the it bruh! Chromosomes are rod-shaped bodies found in the nucleus of a cell and in which genes are located. Y GENES are are units of inheritance composed of DNA and located in chromosome. But the 2nd question is sumhow confusing, because of the ' normally' b4 d question had it bin there is notin lyk normally b4 the question the answer will be E. Environment also deter character but normally its gene and hormones. Thanks. So 1. E 2. D

Microflux:
CELL
I know you have been taught this in your primary school days. But notwithstanding.
The cell is the basic unit of the body and the study of heredity is centred on the NUCLEUS of a living cell. However, not much was mentioned in your primary and early secondary school days about its hereditary properties. Within the nucleus of the cell are materials that control the heredity of the individual. We should remember that only the chromosome is involved in heredity which is determined during the process of meiosis during gametogenesis. [b]Gametogenesis is when the spermatozoa and the ovum fuse together [/b]then mitosis will take place dividing the somatic cell to form the zygote. This are the stages of formation of a baby.
Gametogenesis -> zygote -> foetus -> baby. A pregnancy is abortable easily at the zygote/ early foetus stage.
Diagram of a cell below.

Nairalander01:
Hi All,
Please while i was trying to claim my 1 month free subscription on freelancer.com, I was asked to first verify my payment method and i tried using my bank's(first bank) atm card and it was rejected, how else can i get around this... Any idea?

bayaar:
the only point in ur post is the OS update. Pertaining to the warranty issue, there is difference between warranty and guaranty. Warranty deals with the fone software, maybe it has some factory problem while guaranty deals with hardware in the case of the broken screen... Cest Claire?

lekhane: Flight code has been sent, hope you have received it, I'm on my way to the airport

Tjesctacy: Oh boi, na code tinz??

lekhane: yea, I also received the mail, I immediately sent the mail and got a response that my mail was received, nothing more. I was expecting him to sent the ticket details, just send it as stated and lets know what response you are given.

seuncote: I recieved a message from BRGC CONSULTS that i have been invited for a chat on thursday.pls i will like to know wheither is a scam or not