₦airaland Forum

EMILO2STAY: i understand perfectly what ur saying but this cannot be the basis for the theory of evolution. Other wise u will contradicting ur ownself. If monkeys can speciat into humans due to environmental factor , then humans can also speciat into monkeys due to environmental factor. And talking about species from common ancestor who are too different to interbreed due evolutionary changes caused by the need to adapt to new environs that is a lie! The lion and tiger are different due to there environment but can still interbreed.

I find it extremely irritating that you come here to call 150 years of serious research in a number of fields that all came to the same conclusion a "lie". Your reason for this is seemingly only that you can't imagine it and you dislike the general idea. 150 years ago nobody was able to imagine that we'd fly to the moon one day and so on. I know this is different. But i think we must always be careful to not use our own very limited understanding as a general standard. We defer to those with superior knowledge in every other field, yet in biology, everybody arrogantly claims to "refute" 150 years of research by some of the most intelligent people on earth by simply calling it lies and nonsense. And all that without having even a basic understanding of genetics, for example. If you want to refute a scientific theory you will have to conduct research to falsify it. Good luck trying to refute a theory that nobody has been able to falsify so far in spite of extremely abundant research. Scientific theories can not be refuted by calling them lies, no matter how much you dislike them. I would also like to point out that "theory" in science is used in a very different sense than in daily life.

EMILO2STAY: the process of changing an organism's appearance through a series of small changes is correcty called “microevolution” and that is not what we are referring to when we write “the theory of
evolution” on this page. After a series of microevolutionary changes, a frog may be larger or changed in color due to environmental factors, but it is still a frog, not a fish or a lizard.

You seem to simply detest the idea of that happening, for whatever reason. Anyway, here is how it DOES happen, whether you like it or not.

Evolutionary Ideas: Species and Speciation

In evolution, speciation is simply the process whereby a single lineage (species) splits into two lineages. In other words, new species arise from existing species. But what constitutes a species, and how does speciation occur? The following sections explain.
The biological-species concept

Scientists have a pretty good handle on what constitutes a species for sexually reproducing animals: the biological-species concept. According to this concept, a species is a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce viable and fertile offspring.

Individuals can mate and reproduce with members of their own species but not with members of other species. The defining characteristic separating one species from another is that they are reproductively isolated from each other. When a speciation event occurs — when evolution results in members of one species developing into another species — that group of individuals can no longer interbreed with members of the original species.

The biological-species concept best applies to sexually reproducing animals; it doesn't adequately define what bacterial species are. In fact, defining the term species in other cases is an active area of evolutionary biology.
When one species becomes two

When new species arise from existing species, you have speciation. 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.

Can it be that such a thing really happens? It's clear that some people don't even like the idea of it. How do we know that the whole idea of speciation wasn't just something that Darwin concocted after a night of carousing?

Because of ring species.
Proof: Ring species

Ring species are species with these specific features:

Their habitat surrounds an area of hostile environment that they can't cross. Think about a bird species living in the lower elevations around the Himalayan mountain plateau, or a little salamander species living around the edges of California Central Valley. They can move around the edges, but they can't cross over the middle because they couldn't survive.
Neighboring subpopulations around the circle, or ring, are slightly genetically different from each other. These genetic differences can be measured.
Most neighboring populations can interbreed with each other. The populations near one another are a little different genetically, but they are still the same species and can therefore mate and produce viable offspring.
At one place around the ring, the neighboring populations can't interbreed with each other. Each population can breed with its neighbors (because neighboring populations are just a little bit different), yet all those differences add up as you go from one end of the ring to the other. The result is that, by the time you've gone all the way around the ring, the two populations on the "ends" are too different to interbreed. If it wasn't for all the populations in the middle, the two end populations would be different species.

Through the existence of ring species, scientists can say with certainty that small differences can accumulate in nature to the point that two populations of the same species can become reproductively isolated. They can actually go out and see it.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/evolutionary-ideas-species-and-speciation.html

mojeer678: New Ebola vaccine will be worthless

With 368 mutations already found, there will be no vaccine that will work. Any pushing of an ebola vaccine will be for something other than providing immunity for Ebola, and for anyone who is aware of the recent CDC bust of vaccine links to autism, that "other" is not likely to be good.
It may not even be Ebola at all, and is likely to instead be some sort of engineered hybrid.

Prior to this outbreak, Ebola had a very high genetic stability and remained unchanged through multiple outbreaks. In fact, Ebola has been so stable that it was considered remarkable for this. Why then, with this outbreak, are there so many mutations of this new type, when in past outbreaks NO mutations have been noted at all?

Additionally, this new outbreak has none of the characteristics of previous outbreaks.

There is something missing in this Ebola outbreak, and it is the bloody eyes and ears, and bleeding through the skin. This time all the bleeding is internal and nothing shows outwardly. All the bloody blistered skin photos on the web are from previous outbreaks, with this particular strain people look outwardly normal up until death and die from internal bleeding, vomiting up blood and having massive stools of black goo from internal bleeding. In this way, the new Ebola is mimicking Parvo in dogs, and I would at least tenuously bet that traditional Ebola has been merged in a lab with a different virus that is known for causing only internal bleeding, possibly parvo.

368 mutations in a previously stable virus screams BIO LAB

This is where things may go amiss. Previously, Ebola was a stable virus that could have had a predictable cure. The current strain is mutating so rapidly that if all the recorded cases were added up and divided by the number of mutations, each mutated strain would have only infected an average of 20 people. That is a phenomenal mutation rate, which will render any vaccine attempt useless.

And how could it have happened other than willful intent? The answer is obvious - a lab created this new strain, that lab did not have endless people to kill to prove their virus stable and they just let it go in live tests, out in the wild. And because it was not stable, they now have a mutating monster on the loose. That is the best explanation there could possibly be for why Ebola, which has remained stable as far back as records go, suddenly became a chameleon. This new bug is an unstable bioweapon, possibly more unstable than its creators intended.

Beware of history rewrites, which will provide plausible deniability for whoever did this.

Watch out for any news saying how Ebola mutates continuously without mentioning that prior to this outbreak Ebola was VERY STABLE, and question strongly WHY this new strain is so different from past strains, from outward symptoms, to incubation times, to mutation rates, it is all far too different for this to have happened naturally in a formerly stable virus. Someone did this and the question WHO DID THIS should be kept front and center until we get the answer. We know an American biowarfare firm was in this area "testing Ebola detection kits", I suggest people start with that.

There are very few pictures of people infected with this new strain, and none show the normal bleeding. Why?

Take a look at a google image search with all photos dated a year or more old, and compare them to a google image search of pictures dated to within the time frame of THIS OUTBREAK AND NOTICE THAT EVERYTHING OUT THERE FOR THIS OUTBREAK THAT IS RECOGNIZABLE AS EBOLA IS JUST A REPEAT OF OLD EBOLA PICTURES with anything new just showing people without any blisters.

Almost all of what we are seeing is body bags which show NOTHING, with all other pictures showing none of the classic symptoms. The picture to the left is a prime example, this man who reportedly is an Ebola victim is showing NOTHING that would indicate he ever had Ebola at all. So why is this so different? People in Africa could certainly publish pictures to the web, why then is all we are seeing is pictures of something that is obviously not normal ebola? Pictures dated to before this outbreak clearly show what ebola looks like, I challenge you to find any photo at all from this new outbreak that looks even remotely similar to traditional ebola.

The symptoms say it all:

Here are the symptoms from the current strain,
•Fever (greater than 38.6°C or 101.5°F)
•Severe headache
•Muscle pain
•Weakness
•Diarrhea
•Vomiting
•Abdominal (stomach) pain
•Lack of appetite

In other words, the current symptoms mimic the flu (except for the noted internal bleeding this outbreak has). Now for the classic ebola symptoms:
"After 3-4 days of non-specific symptoms and signs, patients typically experienced progressively severe sore throat, developed a maculopapular rash, had intractable abdominal pain, and began to bleed from multiple sites, principally the gastrointestinal tract. "

And the pictures of this current outbreak prove the classic ebola is not what we are dealing with this time around. The biggest thing in common is gastrointestinal bleeding.

Recovery times also indicate this new ebola is more like a souped up flu than ebola.

Usually, with ebola, recovery takes months and sometimes never happens completely because the liver, kidneys and other organs including the brain get damaged. Yet we see in the media pictures of ebola "survivors" that are up and about only two weeks after having it. This is not possible with real ebola, this outbreak really is more like a really bad flu than anything else.

The bottom line is that the symptoms are not consistent with classic ebola. Recovery times are too fast, and the current CDC list of symptoms does not match the old list except when the CDC combines the new list with the old list to muddy the water. Something is amiss with this, and the new vaccine can only be bogus with so many mutated variants. There is no way any vaccine can be real, we are dealing with a bioweapon this time around which makes that impossible, avoid any "vaccine" like you would the disease itself.

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

Your source: another american conspiracy website. You rely on a highly biased "freelance journalist" for medical and biological facts? Sorry, but that says it all. Why on earth don't you get information from virologists before copy-pasting such nonsense? They actually know what viruses do and don't do. This writer obviously doesn't.

EMILO2STAY: what ur talking about is micro evolution and not macroevolution which is what the argument is about, The actic fox has a dark brownish colour in summer but turns white in winter to adapt to it environment but it still remains a fox, it can never evolve into a wolf or a bear even in 3 billion years time, which is what the darwinian theory of evolution stipulates.

bros, evolution is evolution. macro evolution just takes longer but follows the exact same mechanisms. Your example with the arctic fox... I see what you mean. But that is NOT evolution. Adaptation in evolutionary biology means something totally different. We have to go into genetics a bit to understand it. Let's say for example that the arctic ice melts over a few hundred thousand years. As there is always variation in genomes (due to random mutations), there will be foxes with a slightly darker fur for example. Or a mutation occurs that interferes with the seasonal fur change (all these things are driven by genes and can therefore be affected by random mutations). The fox does not decide which mutation is useful or not. Mutations are just THERE and lead to differences between the individuals of one species. In the changing environment with less and less ice, these said individuals could have an advantage in terms of reproduction. For example because they are less likely to be seen and eaten by other predators. If they are less likely to be eaten they are more likely to survive long enough to reproduce and therefore their genes with that specific mutation will continue to exist in the next generation. Now if a higher percentage of foxes with this mutation reproduce, then over time the appearance of the entire population (or rather species) changes, beecause there is a shift in allele frequencies within the population. Oh and of course these foxes can evolve into new species. And they do. It's just that we can't "watch" this happen right before us because, as you know, it takes ages. But we do find fossils that document such gradual changes. It is also backed up by abundant other evidence. Anyway, you need to think in terms of population gene pools and not individuals magically shifting into something else. That is definitely not evolution, no. Sorry I don't have time right now to continue, but I will if anyone cares for it.

EMILO2STAY: dont mind him, the evolution theory has not contributed any valuable thing to mankind.

First, guys, let me say that I find it a shame that this thread has turned into such a mess of spamming insults at each other and answering questions with other questions. We should not focus on insulting each other's beliefs. I repeat that evolution is NOT ANTI-RELIGION. So why do discussions on a purely BIOLOGICAL topic invariably turn into RELIGIOUS fights. Believe me, if you understand evolution (and then invariably accept it as the fact it is) it does NOT in any way need to interfere with your belief in God. The theory of evolution does NOT deny the existence of gods or whatever. It simply explains some fundamental biological processes. The only thing that will probably happen if you understand evolution is that you see that the bible should better be read more metaphorically and not taken word by word. And that's adviseable either way.
One thing I find difficult about the "questions" being asked on here is that they are very very unspecific. I simply don't have time to write the pages and pages that would be required to answer them in a way that does them justice (and nobody would read it anyway).

If I take this your statement as a starting point though, it is something quite specific that we can talk about. You claim that knowledge of evolution has not contributed anything to the world we live in. I strongly disagree with that. And this is why:

1) science is not business. It's not about an immediate (material) gain. It's about furthering our knowledge about how things function. Often, in the beginning, a new research field can look very "useless" to laymen. But more often than not it turns out to have a practical use as it progresses. The practical use will never be evident though if fundamental research is not conducted. Apart from that science is driven by the idea that it is good and important to understand the world we live in.

2) the knowledge of evolutionary processes and mechanisms has enormous practical applications. For example in medicine and agriculture. Let me just give you one of many possible examples here. Maybe you have heard that antibiotics are becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics. This has led to a worrying re-emergence of diseases that were almost gone. The reason for this is an evolutionary one. Bacteria have adapted as a result of using antibiotics on them. They have changed. It is evolution in progress. Directly observable (yes!) evolution happens in organisms like bacteria because they reproduce insanely fast so that changes in the gene pool of a bacterial population occur in a time span that we ARE able to observe. So since we are dealing with an evolutionary issue here, of course we can only tackle it when we KNOW what's going on. And we do, because nowadays we understand these evolutionary processes.

GJames: Could you guys just give me the answers to the 5 questions i asked.
My post never said anything about me believing in santa claus or fairies. I don't believe they exist but i strongly believe in the supernatural, because i have seen things science can't explain

you didn't ask any question I am aware of. You threw a few pages of "intelligent design" blabla at us.

EMILO2STAY: summarize them dont be afraid to present. It would be better than insult.

I never insulted anybody, did I? I sincerely don't believe that leads anywhere.

EMILO2STAY: am simply open minded, if u present a theory of evolution that makes sense i will accept, but what u guys have been doing is pouring abuses instead rebuting.

Unfortunately the thing is a bit too complex to explain it in 2 minutes. It WILL take some time and effort to learn it because you'd have to first get a grip on a few basics of science in general and biology in particular. If that's asking too much I don't understand why everybody who has no clue about it keeps coming out to argue against it and make fools of themselves.

GJames: I read one of them, learnt some things about the similarities among animals. I'm sorry i still keep naming evolution as the origin of life. Why do you still accept the theory when you can't fully understand it

As I said before, evolution explains the processes that took place once life existed. It does not explain the origin of life. So you read one and learnt about the similarities among animals? I guess you didn't understand how any of it relates to evolution though? As I also said before I accept evolution because it is backed up by overwhelming scientific evidence. Whether or not you care or are able to understand any of it is irrelevant. It still is the way it is.

GJames: 1. How did life originate?
Evolutionist Professor Paul
Davies admitted, “Nobody
knows how a mixture of
lifeless chemicals
spontaneously organized
themselves into the first
living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll,
professor of biology,
Harvard, said, “we don’t
really know how life
originated on this planet”.2
A minimal cell needs several
hundred proteins. Even if
every atom in the universe
were an experiment with all
the correct amino acids
present for every possible
molecular vibration in the
supposed evolutionary age
of the universe, not even
one average-sized
functional protein would
form. So how did life with
hundreds of proteins
originate just by chemistry
without intelligent design?

Apparently you are reading about "intelligent design" instead of evolution. That is NOT science but religious pseudoscience. Don't let yourself be fooled by the various smart words being used in that text. I suggest again that you read the links I gave you earlier as they answer these questions based on today's scientific knowledge. I would also like to point out that the origin of life is not the same thing as evolution. There are various ideas about this in science, but it is not known for sure how it happened. Remember that it happened about 3 billion years ago. Many factors are still unknown and will maybe never be fully understood.

GJames: Unwilling to teach in your own words. Aren't you the lazy teacher

Even though you were not addressing me with this let me point out that I provided you with a number of useful links earlier which you apparently chose to ignore for reasons that I fail to understand. Why would you expect others to waste hours re-writing all the information that already exists? Either you want to learn or you don't. If you do, read.

GJames: May i ask how you all came to accept evolution. It seems you all just accepted it because you can't accept creationism and not because you 've seen evolution at work. You 've never witnessed an animal growing longer necks for stretching to eat something beyond its reach neither have you seen a Snake transforming into an alligator, you just accept it because scientists (who can't even physically prove it) say it is so.

Let me try give you a reasonable answer. "We all" have come to accept evolution because there is overwhelming evidence (http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/what-evidence-supports-the-theory-of-evolution.html). Your idea of evolution has nothing to do with evolution as science sees it nowadays. Animals growing longer necks and then allegedly passing the trait on to the next generation is NOT evolution. That is an old and totally outdated idea from the 18th/19th c. AD by Lamarck (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_09). You should at least try to seriously understand evolution before you attempt to discuss it. I would also recommend you try to understand that evolution is not a belief and not a religion. It's based on overwhelming scientific evidence. You seem to be afraid that accepting evolution may in some way interfere with your belief in God. It won't. Evolution is not anti-religion. It just has nothing at all to do with religion. It might teach you not to take the bible word by word though, but you don't do that anyway, do you? Or do you stone people to death for ridiculous reasons? You have no problem accepting a God without evidence, and yet you desperately try to claim that there is no evidence for evolution without having learnt about it. That makes no sense. It would make sense to LEARN about it first. Yes, it will take some time and effort, but all learning does. Try this site for example http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_toc_01
I read that you don't want to be linked to any sites. Sorry, you'll just have to put up with that. I doubt any of us has the time to spell out a huge field of knowledge for you here. So please just go through the effort of educating yourself a bit and ask specific questions when they arise

GJames: In much of the scientific and educational community today, evolution is the main view given for the origin of life and the universe. I want to believe this but can't due to the following reasons:
1. The teaching of evolution is not truly scientific. According to science, all conclusions must be based on indisputable evidence. The evidence must come from experiments that can be duplicated or repeated over and over with the same end results. However, no experiments could test and prove assumptions like the ''big bang'' theory, nor can it be proven that living things developed gradually from the simplest to the most complex forms( this point defies the second law of thermodynamics that describes how physical matter tends toward disorder-not higher order-as it changes.)
2. Change and development will occur within various species. For example, we occasionally see new developments or mutations within species. But there is no evidence, not even in earth history or fossil records which supports the theory that one kind of living thing ever evolved from another kind.
3. The order of the solar system cannot happen by chance. Lets say there's an explosion and out of it came the Sun, the Stars, the nine planets with their natural satelites (e.g. Moon). These planets decided on their own to revolve in elliptical orbit arround the Sun in anti-clockwise direction (except Neptune).
I can't consider these things and still believe in evolution, this is like having faith in human theory. I am a baby Christian who knows very little about his religion, but i would rather believe in a God i know nothing of than to believe i evolved from an Amoeba. Lets discuss this. Mod abeg frontpage

Most of your questions have nothing to do with evolution. The Big Bang has NOTHING to do with evolution. Your other questions that are about evolution are answered quite well here http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

jamebex: Sure more realistic criteria will give different list, perhaps a more reliable one.

"tertiary education" does not mean quite the same in naija as it does in Norway.
I have to disagree with you on this one, tertiary education means the same thing anywhere in this world. Perhaps you might want to make a case for the quality of education but that's a different thing altogether. A graduate in Nigeria will never become a high school graduate anywhere in this world.

Exactly. I was talking about the quality and contents, not the word as such.

jpphilips: showing paper to a dumbo who probably cannot afford electricity to read it? quit wasting your time, just go through the Buhari m0r0n's posts and you will have a good laugh.
stark village men that knows nothing about choosing sources to support their opinion on the internet, believe me those guys sound like those guys who sell meat along Ipaja road.

you are so right. But what else can one do. It at least needs to be pointed out to them.

jamebex: Agree with you apart from the "the list is NONSENSE" part. IMO the list is fair enough if you consider the criteria used for the judgment.

I am surprise people failed to recognize that this list is based on perceived percent of the educated populace with respect to the country's total population. For instance Israel and Sweden are less than 15million each, Canada is less than 50million while Korea is approximately 50million; Nigeria is more than the combined population of France and Germany. Only Japan and USA are the two countries with a population greater than 100million yet Nigeria is still more than Japan's population.

For what it's worth, there are more educated Nigerians than the whole of Canada, however the uneducated Canadians <<<<<< uneducated Nigerians.

Yeah it's only "nonsense" when you apply more realistic criteria. I agree with you on that. However I don't understand your reference to the total populations of these countries. The total population is totally irrelevant here. And I think we would agree that "tertiary education" does not mean quite the same in naija as it does in Norway, just as an example?

mojeer678: It's now that I just realised that you're no longer jjphilips but now liekiller. Well, that's your own cup of tea.

Your claim to 'hold a PhD in biology' is just that, a claim. GEJ also holds a PhD in Zoology. Hope you can understand that analogy.

Dismissively stating that a source is a conspiracy theory website finally persuades me that you are not worth debating with.

Why?

The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories” has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” they wrote:

“If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.”


So you see, you have been so blinded and indoctrinated, a.k.a. brainwashed that no meaningful reason could be had from you, even if the evidence is staring you in the face.

So, get on with the programme and take your daily dosage from the more public-friendly sources (dumbed down) for the sheeple.

smh

Read the original paper

mojeer678: Ridiculous to you? That snipe shows limited intelligence on your part. Already dismissing the evidence before you get to know the facts you need to read far and wide, bro!

The findings from a just-completed gene analysis of the ebola virus strain by an international team of microbiologists and medical doctors. Their conclusion is that the RNA structure of the ebola virus raging through West Africa is a direct derivative from the Gabon-Congo outbreaks in 2002 and 2003.

The lineage provides important clues as to how Zaire ebola (ZEBOV-Gabon/Congo) was transferred to West Africa over a distance of 4,000 kilometers and a lapse of 10 years without being detected along the way. Zaire ebola is neither native to West Africa nor could it have arrived via any natural or accidental means without triggering intermediate outbreaks.

This is the source, http://www.rense.com/general96/eboutofgabo.html (if you can actually, really read it though, there are no pictures embedded )

Don't worry yourself about how much I have read. I hold a PhD in biology and I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to these things. That's no reliable source. It's a conspiracy theory website. The abstract of the original paper that is being MISquoted in your "source" is here http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/08/27/science.1259657 and the results are summarized in a more public-friendly way here http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6200/989.full.pdf
If you read these you will see that your "source" is distorting the results massively so that they fit into a preconceived opinion.

This list is NONSENSE. It appears to be based mainly on "Percent population with tertiary education". Well, the more you lower the standard, the higher that percentage will be.

mojeer678: The point GenBhuari is making and which you are failing to get, is that the ebola outbreak, which if real, is definitely man made. I fully support this theory too.

Except there are some other issues between you and GenBuhari which I'm not privy to, I think you should cut the insults and abuses

Please present the evidence that makes you support this (ridiculous) theory?

Funny how all the "good Christians" and "good Muslims" in naija see absolutely no need to help others but instead push all responsibility on the US

bstringz: Thats one big dinosaur,buh how come no fossils has been found in naija......naija we hail thee

Other African countries like South Africa are full of fossils. I don't really know the reason none were found in naija so far, but I can think of at least two possibilities:
1) they WERE found but were not recognized as what they are (after all palaeontolgy is not valued or even known in naija)
2) naija's geology is not favourable for fossilization

room089: Baba I understand better now
Thanks

you're most welcome

room089: Baba I hear you!
It is beyond your imagination and it does no longer exist. How come they were able to put that artistic impression up there? Who taught them about the animal and what it looks like?

My guy video or I don't believe this myth!

they found the bones. Palaeontologists (specialists for fossilized remains of life forms in the past) studied them. Skeletal anatomy is pretty useful at determining the size and looks of a animal or human. These things can be reconstructed and then visualized by means of paintings or animations. These are certainly not 100% accurate as they are reconstructions. We can't see the colours of an animal by examining its bones for example. But you certainly can rely on the size and general shape as reconstructed by means of skeletal anatomy.

See am bros http://www.mnh.si.edu/exhibits/backyard-dinosaurs/reconstructing-animals.cfm

room089: Video of the live animal or else everything about it is but a cockk and bull story.

Is it really beyond your imagination that something no longer exists? How would you take a video of your late great-grandparents for example?

prettyboi1989: How will u guys believe one asteroid wiped out dinosaurs yet the dinosaurs are several feet under the ground. Just lyk trying to believe that the world was created from the big bang theory, 4 where?. So the asteroid killed the dinosaurs abi? If you want me to believe that its the hand work of one asterioid, answer my questions:
1- if the asteroid killed the dinosaurs tell me why they are buried deep in the ground. Were some humans so kind to bury the dead dinosaurs?
2: if the asteroid killed the dinosaurs tell me why the same asteroid dint kill the other animals on earth during that period? or were dinosaurs the only animals on earth during that time?

There are answers to your questions. The reason they are deep in the ground are geological processes like sedimentation. They were not interred by anyone. It's a natural process. The reason the asteroid didn't kill all life is that some life forms were able to adapt to the climate change and other changes in the ecosystem that followed the impact.

http://www.discoveringfossils.co.uk/whatisafossil.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/extinction/dinosaurs/asteroid.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140728-asteroid-dinosaurs-diversity-extinct-science/
http://www.palaeontologyonline.com/articles/2013/life-palaeontologist-palaeontology-dummies-part-1/

we don't know the story behind this tragedy and I don't think anyone should judge without knowing what really happened. The baby could have been stillborn.

phreakabit: Not in Nigeria. . . .

yeah so what? It's the same virus.

phreakabit: Our application for Zmapp was turned down prior to the 50% survival rate u speak of .

Err...the epidemic has been going on for 6 months

oshosjf: i no blame u na. why u no go talk like dis? wen ebola neva catch u or ur family members? Since wen did Nigeria bcome a research oriented country. and u expect people who already av d disease to sit and wait for our non research oriented scientists to bring out a drug wen u know dey cant jst develop dat culture overnite. u are wicked.

nobody was saying that victims should not receive the best care or medicine that is available. However, it is dumb and unfair to blame those who HAVE invested billions in research instead of our own useless leaders who have stolen billions over the years. If they just stopped stealing and invested everything they have stolen in education, then Nigeria wouldn't need to rely on foreign aid. well, as long as the cure will come from another country, stop bashing them for nothing or stop demanding a cure from them.

[quote author=Samyj247][/quote]love for humanity when her bogus cures and conspiracy theories are putting lives at risk and contributing to the spread of ebola? when her bogus cures are selled for up to 250$ for a tiny bottle on her various websites full of manipulative lies? seriously?

Dmentor: When shall Nigeria become really independent? USA says ours is pesticide and we believed them & abandoned it. May the 'pesticide' from Japan work...All we need is...CURE.

And when will you ever understand and read about what "ours" really is It was NOT developed by any Nigerian, it was not developed by the US bogus cures company that promoted it in Africa either. It HAS BEEN AROUND FOR MANY YEARS. It has been studied scientifically. It's used as a surface desinfectant, pesticide etc. It is NOT a cure for ebola. The US did not declare it a pesticide to spite Nigeria. It was a pesticide long before ebola even came to West Africa.