₦airaland Forum

GenBuhari: Many are likely to tell you that they have not seen Ebola in there communities only in the foreign ran Ebola centre, hence there is reports of locals chasing them away and raiding the centres.



It seems you do not know how the US exploits African countries. Those countries are rich in resources diamonds etc. In order to pay for the vaccines US would simply give them an ruinous IMF or World bank loans with conditionalities that would mean that they cannot repay, then USA would force them to give away their resources for next to nothing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuCdOkf4NxQ&list=UUMQOLBMYxeVLCX3cUWfmbOQ



Wait and see, everytime we thought it is gone it suddenly pops up in another part of the country - don't you see it is odd how despite very few cases most Nigeria states are building Ebola centres? Our clueless govt has never shown this type of initiative and pro-activity on any issue - which should make us suspicious

Yeah many are likely to not have seen an ebola patient because only 0,02% of the population have been affected and there's a huge percentage of illiterates in those countries too. It's quite obvious that there are more cases where the centres are because that's where they are all brought. Just because you find a few things "odd" doesn't mean it's a conspiracy. And yes I do know various countries exploit African ressources. So why are you not blaming china then? Just as an example... None of this makes any sense. It's just ignorant.

GenBuhari: My view is not that US wants to use Ebola to depopulate (that is why I referred to it as conspiracy theory. I was just saying how the conspiracy theory can possibly be used to explain US motives although I believe it is only remotely possible.

My view is that I do not know the motives of the USA for trying to panic and terrorise us, my guess (some may call it conspiracy theory but I think it is highly probable) is that USA either wants to sell fake Ebola drugs (fake because Ebola does not exist) to us and make huge profits from us; Or that US is planning to use Ebola to make it easier to control us when they try to implement their plan to break up Nigeria, by combining the twin terror of Ebola and Boko Haram who are fake jihadist being commanded by America / CIA. Or a combination of both possibilities.

ok. well... firstly, why don't you ask a few people in Liberia and Sierra Leone whether or not ebola exists. Secondly, ask yourself how the US could possibly make money from selling vaccines/drugs to 3 BANKRUPT countries?! If vaccines/drugs arrive, they will invariably be sponsored by other countries. Also consider that getting these meds around will cost a fortune due to a total lack of infrastructure. Furthermore they have already pumped millions into containing ebola. Simply put: profit no dey. Thirdly, ask yourself how your theory makes sense given that ebola is GONE in naija.

GenBuhari: Ebola may exist or may not exist .
But what is happening in West Africa is not any epidemic, but more a psychological manipulation /warfare to terrorise .

Yes what the US and Western countries are trying to do is terrorism, by fooling people into being terrified and panicking.

If Ebola is does exist then it is probably still in US labs and yet to be released, but my bet is that the evil strategy is to panic African people into being given buying vaccines. The vaccines / drugs are what will really kill most people.

If the conspiracy theory that US wants to reduce population of Africa to take over its resources, then this is a way of achieving this objective without risking wiping themselves out along with us Africans.

idiotic. totally idiotic. If they wanted to reduce population there would be infinitely more efficient ways. They COULD if they wanted to. But it's just another idiotic conspiracy theory. How will a few thousand deaths reduce a population of 22 million (in the 3 most affected countries). You have clearly been sucked in by the stupidity&ignorance-based American anti-vaccination fools.

rastarman: from history Christopher Columbus 1886 is when the view of the world was spherical was publicly accepted to some persons. the ancient Egypt astronomers knew that the earth was spherical. the Sanskrit of Hinduism did not say the Earth was flat. it was the church father's who were discussing and arguing about the flat earth..... till Christopher Columbus using ship navigation was able to prove to them the earth is spherical. NB The European people always love to define their environment as the world, which is not so.... there are people in China and America and other parts of the world with different believes.

I don't see how this is meaningful for this discussion. Science is NOT about "beliefs". We no longer live in the 19th century, and apart from a few bizarre fundamentalists nobody is discussing whether or not the earth is flat anymore. Nowadays there is a set of standards that the scientific community around the world adheres to. It doesn't matter whether a study is conducted in Malaysia, Siberia, Colombia or Australia as long as it passes the scrutiny of international peer review. In fact, most research is conducted by teams composed of people from around the world.

EMILO2STAY: google is ur friend.

Right, and it's just more biology. Your interpretation of the whole story is bizarre, and the conclusions you draw are WRONG
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hub/summary/v073/73.5murhekar.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC378623/
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2802%2901336-2

macof: Good, you admit u are ignorant on evolution
My guess is that you know nothing about biology

you don't even need to guess... read his shocking posts and your suspicion shall be more than confirmed

mojeer678: You still don't get it?

When you call something 'a conspiracy theory' or 'a conspiracy website', it shows your low mental level and 'extreme irrationality' of those who prefer to 'label' rather than analysing the issues confronting their worldview. If you chose to deride a 'freelance journalist' as 'highly biased' without providing the reasons for such conclusion, then you must be very confused.

If your definition of the 'real' journalists are those who like fawning over GEJ or Deziani or BRF or BAT or those rising oligarchs in the country or whoever is controlling the purses in any economic sector for your daily dosage of 'news', then I could only pity you. The media really only has but one purpose and that is to inform the public.The rest is just fluff. The ones crowding the available space have failed miserably at their job. They are owned by vested interests. And that's where independent journalists exist. They are not owned. They are not afraid of offending any establishment sensibilities which are often in conflict with reporting the truth. If a person is a freelance, does it mean that his reports are not to be taken at a face value?

Continue exposing your ignorance, it makes for some comedy in an otherwise a serious topic and you can continue with the abuses and insults. Indeed the more virulent the abuse, the more I realise that GenBuhari and I are right, since abuse is the resort of those who have no arguments.

Meanwhile, Why no Ebola pictures?

A serious question must be raised about this current outbreak - why no pictures of classic Ebola? If this outbreak is real, and this is Ebola at all, it is so radically altered from it's earlier type that it is effectively not the same bug at all. Clearly, what we are seeing with this outbreak is not normal Ebola.

Do a dated Google search of the Ebola outbreak. Set Google to only recall pictures from the last month or so. You will discover that there is not one photo of Ebola with this outbreak, with all photos of real Ebola being drop ins from past outbreaks. That is really enough to make me think that there either might not be an outbreak of Ebola, or that if there is, it is not the normal Ebola from the past. If people are dying (the latest number is 2400) it is not classic ebola doing this. At any rate, the death rates are taking an exponential curve now according to the WHO, if this is even real at all.

In light of the fact that there are no pictures from this outbreak, I would like people to consider something

Consider that even in Africa there are cell phone cameras and internet. Why no Ebola photos? In fact, Liberia and Sierra Leon are English speaking countries, so any photos posted would be listed as Ebola, in English which would make it easy to find them in English. Why are we seeing NADA? Even Al Jazeera's "Ebola, In Pictures" does not show JACK, if they really put it in pictures SOMETHING, ANYTHING should be there. Instead, there is NADA.

The fact that quarantines are now supposedly in place cannot account for the lack of photos, because a cell phone can send a picture out of a quarantine zone. Liberia is almost entirely wireless now, with almost 70 percent of Liberians having cell phones, and there are 4 cell phone companies there. Though only 7 percent of Liberians have internet, the rest can get on the web with cyber cafe's, and there would no doubt be a few in the quarantine zone, WHY NO EBOLA PICTURES THEN? If there was a disaster in progress you can bet SOMEONE, ANYONE, EVEN AN AMERICAN DOCTOR WHO WORKED THIS would have gotten a shot of Ebola out of there, with the classic symptoms. And Sierra Leon may not be as well off communication wise, but there are still more than 2 million cell phones there. Something stinks with this, reality on the ground is obviously not matching what the media is saying.

And there is another problem to address with all of this - and that is that the people in the Ebola zone do not believe there is an Ebola outbreak. One would think that if Ebola was real, that in Africa, where people still talk and rumors spread by word of mouth and almost 70 percent of the people have cell phones in Liberia that even one case of Ebola would cause such a ruckus that they would not need the WHO to tell them something is going on. The fact that the people there do not believe it is real stands as a serious red flag.

So the question is then, is this Ebola outbreak just a false flag setup for forced vaccinations?

I am seriously questioning if that is in fact the case. Millions of Liberian cell phone cams surely suggest it. All the Ebola photos that are associated with this outbreak show body bags and hospital wards with people who could be there for anything, there are no bleeding eyes and ears, no blistered arms, NOTHING showing at all from this outbreak, which if it was real should have been the most well documented and published of all. No other outbreak has matched this one in size, and no other outbreak happened with such a presence of the ability to document it. The lack of photographic proof in hard set terms is damning, it really does look like it could all be a ruse

And how can you have an outbreak THAT BIG have no confirmed cases outside of the hot zone? Quite frankly, the stories of American doctors getting cured are lies, because Ebola blows people away for months if not years because Ebola causes serious organ damage, and the doctors are already out and about, playing Tennis and Golf. They did not have Ebola.

Source: http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/

I still don't get what? Of course I understand what your conspiracy theory is about, but I don't find it one bit plausible. Let me go through a few points. You have clearly never been to any of the affected countries, else you'd immediately see the huge flaws in this conspiracy theory.

And how can you have an outbreak THAT BIG have no confirmed cases outside of the hot zone

"THAT BIG" is very very relative when you look at the huge area it covers and the fact that roughly 22 mio people inhabit that area. With about 4000 recorded cases 0,02% of the population have been affected, and most of those cases were in the "hot zones" you mentioned. That also explains why very few will even have been close to an infected person. In areas less affected this can certainly lead to the assumption that ebola is but a rumour. Especially if you also keep in mind the general mistrust against all authorities.

One would think that if Ebola was real, that in Africa, where people still talk and rumors spread by word of mouth and almost 70 percent of the people have cell phones in Liberia that even one case of Ebola would cause such a ruckus that they would not need the WHO to tell them something is going on. The fact that the people there do not believe it is real stands as a serious red flag.

I'm in daily contact with several people in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia. None of them doubts that ebola is real. You know, there are currently massive travel restrictions and curfews. People are not exactly running to the isolation centers to snap patients. Quite the contrary. They are avoiding those centres at all cost. You should also keep in mind that you are talking about a population with literacy rates between 30% (Guinea) and 60% (Liberia). Millions of these people live in rather remote areas that are not easily accessible (I doubt they were included in your unverified "poll" if it ever happened). No information and care teams are navigating the thousands of miles of footpaths to the more remote villages in Guinée forestière and similar areas in the region. Probably a large number of people there haven't even heard about the epidemic! Many others have no access to any written sources at all because they can't read, there is no electricity and no network. It's really no wonder many don't believe it's around when nobody anywhere near them has been affected. "A serious red flag"? Nope. Just a common result of the situation on site.

The fact that quarantines are now supposedly in place cannot account for the lack of photos, because a cell phone can send a picture out of a quarantine zone

Sure, it could send pictures. But i would guess the patients are too sick and the doctors too busy to worry about taking pics. Or they don't find it appropriate to snap patients while sh*tting, vomiting and dying?

why no pictures of classic Ebola? If this outbreak is real, and this is Ebola at all, it is so radically altered from it's earlier type that it is effectively not the same bug at all. Clearly, what we are seeing with this outbreak is not normal Ebola.

What exactly is "classic ebola"? In past outbreaks there has been quite a bit of variation. You are referring to the (very few) pictures online that show blood blisters and bleeding. Can you be sure that they even show ebola? Well, fact is: bleeding is NOT always a symptom, and there have been previous outbreaks where this was not common at all. The skin rash was actually rare in black patients. Furthermore when bleeding DOES occur it is mainly from the gastrointestinal tract. Do you expect them to take pictures of patients while sh*tting and vomiting blood or what? Apart from that ebola is not diagnosed by its symptoms but via PCR detection and virus isolation.
I think we should leave the diagnostics to those who are qualified. You can't just list whatever you think "should" be the appropriate symptoms and take that as "proof" for some conspiracy. It's not serious.

They did not have Ebola

Proof? I don't know where you get your information from. Publications in medical journals generally mention a duration of about 1-3.5 weeks from the onset of symptoms until clinical recovery.

And how can you have an outbreak THAT BIG have no confirmed cases outside of the hot zone?

Firstly, that's quite typical for ebola. All outbreaks were very much geographically confined. Secondly, while this outbreak generally isn't that confined, there WERE cases outside of the hot zone - those in Nigeria and one in senegal. Thirdly, it's no wonder that there weren't more of them. Most "hot zones" like Kailahun are in extremely remote areas that are surrounded by equally remote and inaccessible areas. While this is not true for Monrovia which is hit hard, please keep in mind that most flights have been suspended, borders closed and so on.

is this Ebola outbreak just a false flag setup for forced vaccinations?

Only an American conspiracy freak could come up with this. "Forced vaccinations" in three more or less failed states that are not only broke but also lack even the most basic infrastructure? Three of the most disorganized countries on earth? haha. Well I must say it would be kind of fun to watch them attempt "forced vaccinations" there. But what makes the conspiracy theory totally obsolete is the financial aspect. Believe me, large-scale "forced vaccinations" in these areas would cost far more than they could possibly earn from it, and it simply could not be enforced. No chance. I encourage you to go and see for yourself. Besides that, if any such thing were to be tried, it would invariably be financed by the countries who created the vaccines. Does that make sense with regard to profit?


By the way I have nothing against freelance journalists. All the contrary. I only have something against those who fail to do proper research because all they want is to promote a preconceived idea.


http://www.itg.be/internet/ebola/ebola-11.htm
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/179/Supplement_1/S1.long
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/179/Supplement_1/S36.long
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/463684_3

EMILO2STAY: i have proved you wrong whether u admit it or not. U can keep beating about the bush for all i care, u can also try to keep ur deluded fanaticism to urself and out of christianity.

Your way of arguing is very childish and stubborn. All you ever do is twist everybody's words around by 180°. How old are you actually? 12?

Macelliot: 1. Only in recent years has
science discovered thateverything we see iscomposed of invisible atoms. Here, Scripture tells us that the "things which are seen were not made of things which do
appear."
2. Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.

3. At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space: "HE hangs the earth upon
nothing" (Job 26:7).


4. The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). This
is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere.
Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world (see
Proverbs 3:6 footnote).


5. God told Job in 1500 B.C.: "Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?" (Job 38:35). The
Bible here is making what appears to be a
scientifically ludicrous
statement—that light can be sent, and then
manifest itself in speech.
But did you know that
radio waves travel at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with
someone on the other
side of the earth. Science didn’t discover this until
1864 when "British
scientist James Clerk
Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing" (Modern Century Illustrated
Encyclopedia).


6. Job 38:19 asks, "Where
is the way where light
dwells?" Modern man has only recently discovered that light
(electromagnetic
radiation) has a "way," traveling at 186,000 miles per second.


7. Science has discovered that stars emit radio waves, which are received
on earth as a high pitch.
God mentioned this in Job 38:7: "When the morning stars sang together..."


8. "Most cosmologists
(scientists who study the structures and evolution of the universe) agree
that the Genesis account of creation, in imagining an initial void, may be uncannily close to the
truth" (Time, Dec. 1976).


9. Solomon described a
"cycle" of air currents two thousand years before scientists "discovered" them. "The wind goes toward the south, and
turns about unto the
north; it whirls about
continually, and the wind returns again according to his
circuits" (Ecclesiastes 1:6).


10. Science expresses the
universe in five terms:
time, space, matter,
power, and motion.
Genesis 1:1,2 revealed
such truths to the
Hebrews in 1450 B.C.: " In the beginning [time] God
created [power] the
heaven [space] and the earth [matter] . . . And the Spirit of God moved [motion] upon the face of the waters." The first thing God tells man is that He controls of all aspects of the universe.


11. The great biological truth concerning the
importance of blood in our body’s mechanism
has been fully
comprehended only in
recent years. Up until 120 years ago, sick people were "bled," and many died because of the
practice. If you lose your blood, you lose your life.
Yet Leviticus 17:11,
written 3,000 years ago, declared that blood is the source of life: "For the life
of the flesh is in the
blood."


12. All things were made by Him (see John 1:3),
including dinosaurs. Why then did the dinosaur disappear? The answer may be in Job 40:15–24.
In this passage, God
speaks about a great
creature called "behemoth." Some
commentators think this was a hippopotamus.
However, the hippo’s tail isn’t like a large tree, but a small twig. Following are the characteristics of
this huge animal: It was the largest of all the creatures God made; was plant-eating (herbivorous); had its strength in its hips and a tail like a large tree. It had very strong bones, lived among the trees, drank massive amounts of water, and was not disturbed by a raging river. He appears impervious to attack because his nose could pierce through snares, but
Scripture says, "He that made him can make his sword to approach unto
him." In other words, God caused this, the largest of all the creatures He had
made, to become extinct.


14. Luke 17:34–36 says
the Second Coming of
Jesus Christ will occur
while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field. This
is a clear indication of arevolving earth, with day and night at the same time.
http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/scientificfactsintheBible.shtml

Your idea of science is that of the 19th century, and so are the scientific results you pull out of their context here to "prove" whatever point you believe you have. They are not from "recent" years oo. Science has moved WAY beyond this. You just seem to have missed the past 120 years of research?

EMILO2STAY: when did i say inbreeding was a lie, u said eve slept with her children but i proved u wrong. And which knowledge of biology are u talking about, u mean the of theory of evolution lies u peddle without facts?, if that is what u call knowledge then keep it to urself i dont need it.

LOL "proved me wrong"? With what? Were you there to see it with your own eyes as you demand from those trying to explain evolution to you?! And what difference does it make anyway if brothers impregnate their sisters or their mother? it's all the same, I*N*C*E*S*T!
Biology is more than only evolution, but you can't understand evolution without understanding a few very basic scientific principles and basics of biology. Since you don't want and don't need such knowledge I wonder why you keep talking about it. You are certainly free to wallow in your self-inflicted ignorance. But why don't you just keep your deluded fanaticism to yourself, and especially keep it out of science where it has no place.

EMILO2STAY: Yes: however, this was not a problem. Inbreeding is a problem when children are born with identically defective genes for some function or control from both their mother and their father. When the mother andfather are closely related, they will a have many of the same genetic aberrations, and this increases the chances of a significant number of mutations. In the original creation, therewere no genetic aberrations, so there was no practical problem to inbreeding. Only over time are genetic errors are introduced(around 40 mutations per generation). To avoid these mutations leading to death and disability, it is not sufficient to avoid sharing a parent with your spouse: it is wise not to marry anyone where the family link can be demonstrated. You can also tell me how the first homo sapien got his wife.

You, Sir, are a case of your own. When I made you aware of the inbreeding matter, you called it a blasphemous lie or whatever the exact word was (as you call everything about biology a lie, as if you were even qualified to know). Now you admit it but invent some nonsense to make it sound plausible. I have decided not to argue with you any longer because
1) your knowledge of biology is less than primary school level, and you are not willing or able to improve on that
2) your fanaticism and arrogance doesn't allow you to look at evidence and understand/evaluate it
3) you simply refuse to understand anything that could burst your beloved fairytale bubble of incest in garden eden.
A reasonable discussion is not possible on this basis. Some will forever wallow in self-inflicted arrogance.

EMILO2STAY: baseless assupmtion and ridiculous answer indeed, humans dont live that long yet you know it takes a hundred million years u've not witnessed to evolve completely.

It's the only true answer, sorry if you dislike it. I'm not going to waste more time explaining the evidence that makes this NOT to be a ridiculous assumption. It's all out there for those willing and able to read (and understand what they read).

oluwabambam: I was just reading a post on Nairaland some minutes ago where the topic was on what constitutes a God-fearing individual. Someone commented adding that he/she is an atheist and that got me wondering. I have been seeing so many atheists on social media in Nigeria and it bothers me why there are so many of them nowadays. Are people now saying that there is no God? Do people mean that they don't believe in the creator of the universe? How did they come into existence if they don't believe in God. God created us all and this is what the Bible says. What is it with all these atheists? I want to understand why anyone would come to the conclusion that there is no God. It baffles me seriously. I need answers.

There are answers to your questions. Many people nowadays are educated and dare ask critical questions. Even about religion. While doing so they discover that the religions as they are don't make sense to them and that they are rather institutions that were set up in order to brainwash and control people (and extort money of course) ever since 5000 BC. Some will not reject religion completely, but they will at least be more critical about it and won't accept everything they are fed. They might start to see certain parts of the bible as metaphorical rather than taking them literally (which is a good thing I believe. Else you'd be stoning people to death for the most insane reasons). Others will become agnostics or atheists. Agnostics don't exclude the possibility hat there could be a god. But they don't believe it's necessary or makes sense to get involved in any worshipping cult. They accept the fact that they don't KNOW whether or not there is a god. Others will become atheists. Those don't believe there is a god as depicted in any of the religions man has invented.

I think most atheists and agnostics are generally less concerned about god than they are about religion. They are disgusted by the madness, fanaticism, backwardness, intolerance and hypocrasy of religions today, especially when they are of the fundamentalist variety as in Nigeria. They believe in free thinking. They believe in tolerance and freedom. They believe in education and common sense. They believe in doing good themselves rather than praying for god to do good (which never seems to happen). They believe in accepting their own responsibility rather than praying for miracles (which never seem to happen). They are disgusted by things like the redemption camp that cost billions, while none of the "good Christians" involved in it would ever go see and help the people living under the bridges next to it. Why was all that money not spent to actually help people in the first place? They are disgusted by the way all the "good Christians" are obsessed with sin. But only sexual "sin" of course, and only sexual sin that doesn't concern them. 419 and all that is interestingly never considered to be a sin even though the bible says you shall not steal, right? Lying and cheating is also not considered a sin in spite of what the bible says. Yet it never seems to occur to these "good christians" that they are not doing any good in their lives. No, instead they worship money and materialism. For example all our "good Christian" girls who sell their bodies for money to their sugar daddies (it's known as prostitution in the rest of the world). Atheists are also disgusted about pastors who collect from gullible (and mostly poor) people and buy private jets rather than doing good. They are disgusted by yahoo boys stealing in the name of God. But all these hypocrites assemble in church every sunday or more and express their "fervent" religious madness. And so on, and so on..... These are all reasons why people turn their backs on religion.

Very good and helpful topic and initial post. I believe many people are suffering unnecessarily. Depression and similar conditions are stigmatized and not taken seriously due to lack of education. This is an excellent effort to create awareness and get people talking about it.

RikoduoSennin: Yes, you are right. Inbreeding between brother and sister until population become plenty. Abraham married his step sister and Isaac married his cousin. That kind of thing.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Dux01: imagine after all these genes,evolution,proofs you now die now find yourself inside FIRE?are you 100% sure He doesn't exist?

apparently you didn't read a lot here. Else you would have noticed that the theory of evolution does not reject any god. It has nothing to do with any of it. it's biology.

RikoduoSennin: .

In the bible only two humans were created - Adam and Eve. Both of them gave birth to both Sons and daughters - Genesis 5:4.

It is very wrong to think Adam only gave birth to 3 sons just because only their names were mentioned.

I'm fine with that. So he had daughters too. It just doesn't change the fact that they would have been inbreeding though, albeit possibly with their sisters instead of the mother.

EMILO2STAY: these are pure lies , there is nothing like genes that cuz humans to grow fur have been shut off. As long as evolution is concerned everything continues to evolve. If evolution is true the native of the amazon should have developed furs and foot-like arms cuz of the need to adapt to their environs.
cats, dogs, cows share much gene with humans why does the embryo not mimic these animals.
What u claimed as “gill slits” like those of a fish are actually your throatpouches. The embryo never has gills and they are never slits.They develop into important human organs like the ear canals, thymus, and parathyroid glands.

cat, dog and cow embryos look the same. All VERTEBRATE embryos look pretty much the same as stated before. Google it. By the way you share about 50% of your genes with the banana too.

"there is nothing like genes that cuz humans to grow fur have been shut off" what? As for the rest of your claims: prove it. Bring on the genetic and anatomical studies that support your claims. You can't falsify scientific results by calling them lies. So bring forth the research that proves it. Also explain the alternative genetic mechanism for humans with fur, tails and supernumerary nip-ples.

While you're at it also have a look at biodiversity in the Amazon rainforest and explain why manatees, piranhas, snakes, birds, frogs and insects in the Amazon "failed" to evolve "furs and foot-like arms cuz of the need to adapt to their environs". You really don't understand it, or are you trolling us?

EMILO2STAY: there are several people in the amazon jungle who have lost contact with civilation and according to ur evolution theory this people should have evolved to somthing more like an ape cuz of the need to adapt to their environment.
As for the eve case; Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth: And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos.
so as u can see adam had several sons and daugthers laters and seth would have taken his wife from their offring.

Your example with the Amazon tribes is not applicable. Homo sapiens have only been around for about 200'000 years. Even IF a certain sub-population had been isolated completely during all this time it would not be nearly enough time for them to evolve into a new species.

Eve case: ok. so we have Eve and her daughters then. That means they must have inbred with their sisters if it wasn't with Eve. In the next generation their cousins. I can tell you this tribe wouldn't have survived more than a few generations....

EMILO2STAY: how do u know it will take a hundred million years to notice.

because that's how long evolution on the larger scale has always taken

Comparative Anatomy: comparing organisms' body structures can also show evolution and a common ancestry. Organisms that have the same bone structures but physically have different functions (Homologous structures). eg. bat's wings have the same bone structure as a whale's fin. Even though these animals do not look the same, and the functions may be different, their arms and hands' bone structures indicate shared ancestry.

More proof for common ancestry: vertebrate embryology. All vertebrate embryos start out having a tail and gills.

EMILO2STAY: now the question is, if humans speciated from common ancestors with the chimp,... why hav'nt those humans who lost contact with other human civilization speciated into somthing more like an ape with fur all over there body due to change in enviroment.

If you need more proof that life forms indeed do share common ancestors, then have a look here. Every species still carries its ancestral DNA. This means you still carry the genes of your very distant reptile, fish etc. ancestors. During embryogenesis you follow the evolutionary path where you came from. This can be seen by the fact that you start off as one cell, then become an aggregation of cells, then you become a fish-like creature with gills etc. So let's look at a few atavisms. These are evolutionary throwbacks. This means that some ancestral genes can be expressed again phenotypically (after they had been "shut off" in the course of evolution, which made us lose certain traits).

The genes that made our ancestor grow fur have been shut off. When they are not suppressed, you get humans with fur.
The genes that made our ancestor have a tail were shut off as well. When they are not suppressed, you get humans with rudimentary tails.
The genes that made our ancestor have rows of nip-ples were shut off during primate evolution. When they are no longer suppressed you get humans with supernumerary nip-ples.
The genes that made the ancestor of snakes have legs were suppressed during the evolution of snakes. When they are no longer suppressed, snakes can grow legs.

Interesting, right?

EMILO2STAY: now the question is, if humans speciated from common ancestors with the chimp,... why hav'nt those humans who lost contact with other human civilization speciated into somthing more like an ape with fur all over there body due to change in enviroment.

Err, is it you who decides how something SHOULD evolve?! In fact, nobody decides. Evolution has come up with a million different adaptations. Humans adapted to their environments differently than chimps. And do you have an example of one human population that was isolated from the rest? And if you have such an example can you explain why they would necessarily evolve into "something like a chimp"? Btw I'm still waiting for your explanation about the "creation" of females.

EMILO2STAY: lol guy ure funny. If humans speciated from chimps due to environmental factor dont u think humans who lost contant with civilation such as those found in the amazon should have speciated into something more like an ape with fur all over their body? Do not use microevolution to prove the macro evolution it cant work that way.
secondly, u cant be a christian and believe in the theory of evolution because that will be like believing that God is an ape.

Who ever said that humans originated from chimps? Nobody. And especially not the theory of evolution. They share a common ancestor with humans. Which is why they are so extremely similar to us (no, that's not an insult to anybody). I have made you aware before that this differentiation between micro and macro evolution makes no sense. Evolution is evolution.
Well, you can't be a FUNDAMENTALIST Christian and believe in evolution. But I sure know numerous MODERATE Christians who have no problem with it. I know that any sort of moderation in religion is not common in Nigeria. Instead we practice our imported religion the way it was practiced in Europe in the 13th century. This is not the case in the rest of the world though.

RikoduoSennin: The bolded Section is False, a Malicious lie. Quote where such is written in the bible!

This just ruin everything you have been posting on this thread for me.

Then correct me. Where does it say in the bible that other females were created?

Kay17: Thanks for the clarification, however it is important to begin a persuasion from common grounds of understanding. Since most ID proponets are reluctant to accept mutations in humans it would be hopeless to reach an understanding from that stage.

I totally agree. My only point was that it probably helps in this if we use precise terminology so it can't be distorted as usual.

Kay17: I think the pivotal point of evolution is mutation. As long as mutation is accepted, the remainder of evolution follows and is easier to understand.

Mutation is well proven in microorganisms. Viruses such as ebola have being known to mutate into other strains. Same with tuberculosis. Once an organism mutates, it becomes a different from its parent organism. The uniqueness I believe is a consequence of additional information.

Organisms as a whole don't mutate. Their DNA does by means of substitution, insertion, deletion of amino acids. This is referred to as mutation. I'm just pointing this out because the term "mutation" will certainly be misinterpreted in this context otherwise. Apart from that I agree very much that understanding this is fundamental in order to understand evolution. Unfortunately it's almost impossible to get this message across to people who were not fortunate to receive even a minimum of quality education in biology.
By the way mutation is by no means only well proven in microorganisms. It's not some exotic new thing but is very well established and studied in humans too.

And just a last comment before I say good night: can you explain to me why fundamentalists are so offended by evolution when their biblical story says that all humans on earth are the result of incest between Eve and her sons? I find that idea far more offensive.

EMILO2STAY: of course it does from ur statement above, the truth of the whole matter is that Evolutionary scientists reject creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as ascientific explanation of origins. Give a single proof where speciation has been observed to the level where two different population of common ancestor are unable to interbreed?.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but it sounds as if you believe that anything originating from a common ancestor should still be able to interbreed? Have you ever tried breeding with a chimp? It wouldn't work. And yet we share a common ancestor and still have almost identical genomes. If two closely related but already different species CAN still interbreed it simply means that they are not two completely separate species yet. But I certainly don't see even a minimal clue about how this allegedly contradicts evolution.
Furthermore I will repeat it AGAIN that the theory of evolution as such does NOT make or even try to make any statements about the ORIGIN of life. You can safely believe that there was a "creation" at the very beginning and at the same time accept evolution. These problems are a result of fundamentalist beliefs. MODERATE Christians have NO problems at all with evolution. They are able to see some parts of the bibles as metaphors. Simple as that.

EMILO2STAY: hahahaha...u said sooo?, sooo means i just proved u wrong. Today we have the pitbull, rotweiller dogs which is a product of artificial breeding; what about the geep, most live long and are fertile. pls do stop attaching emotions to this, bring facts not emotions and baseless assumption.

Abeg, read the articles that explain how this does NOT disprove evolution

EMILO2STAY: 150yrs ko ,150yrs ni. Dont attach emotions to this bring up facts. Let me quot one of your statements which i called lies .

''Here's how it works:
Two different populations of the
same species evolve in different
ways. They become progressively more different
until they are so different that
they are no longer able to
interbreed''.
i gave proof after i called them lies today we have ligers, tigons , leopons. All these are product of different species from same ancesto r. So my friend you can see with me that 150yrs of the evolution theory prooves nothing.

Yeah, we have lions and tigers and the offspring from their interbreeding? Sooooo? That does NOT IN THE LEAST disprove evolution. Firstly, they don't interbreed in the wild. These are artificial settings. Secondly, they do not breed succesfully (yes, that's a keyword in this context. But: offspring are sterile and short-lived). Thirdly: it simply means that they have not diverged far enough yet to be unable to breed. http://163.16.28.248/bio/activelearner/19/ch19intro.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_02.html
I'm sorry to say, but this is arrogant of you. You really think anyone can pop up out of nowhere with some random examples they don't even understand properly and then think this disproves 150 years of work of some of the smartest people on earth? Seriously?