₦airaland Forum

@Naijaheydia, have you taken your pick? My "YES" or "NO" question?

Niflheim:
@Naijaheydia, have you taken your pick? My "YES" or "NO" question?

Responding to you has been purely courteous as from your previous posts here and on other threads have shown a sadistic nature in you. So permit me to focus on people who have either made more sense though debunked or people who at least understand the argument.

naijadeyhia:
What you should be asking her since she is a microbiologist is if that submission is wrong. I am a scientist myself and for purpose of speed had to quickly drop that as it is 100% correct and I deliberately wanted her to refute that. Not with an assumption but with actual real fact becaue I posted detailed scientifically understandable fact which she can try to deny.

That is plagiarism my friend. What is wrong in informing us of source of your so-called 100% correct article? The only way you feel you can now bailout yourself is by asking all of us to believe the crap just because it was copied and pasted by Naijadeyhia. You guys can be so funny at times.

@Freiburger, you dey mind them?!!!

People who claim that a mansion is waiting for them in heaven and yet are afraid to die?!!!

They are the same people who will claim, "Greater is he who is in me, than is he who is in the world", and yet cannot even answer simple "YES" or "NO" question!!!

Lol!!! I am really beginning to enjoy this thread!!!

Though, i am not an atheist, but let me drop one proof of evolution for you. What would you call the metamorphism of some caterpillars to butterflies?

naijadeyhia:
Did you read where I said in my statement that no scientist has observed a mutation occur in its natural environment and not lenskis conveniently prepared lab experiment. Was lenskis carried out using naturally occuring elements in the environment? CAPITAL NO. Prove to me that he did and I will shut up.


Richard Lenski incorrectly included generations of the E. coli already known to contain Cit+ variants in his experiments. Once these generations are removed from the analysis, the data disprove Lenski's hypothesis

It was error to include generations of the E. coli already known to contain trace Cit+ variants. The highly improbable occurrence of four Cit+ variants from the 32,000th generation in the Second Experiment suggests an origin from undetected, pre-existing Cit+ variants.

The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance. Lenski's paper applied the Whitlock Z-transformation incorrectly, perhaps intentionally so, in making a claim that Lenski's results were "extremely significant". Lenski's "whether or not" refers to two incorrect applications of the Whitlock technique, obscuring how the straightforward, correct weighting based on sample size was not used. Lenski paper deliberately conceals the misapplication.

Lenski's paper claims that "During 30,000 generations, each population experienced billions of mutations, far more than the number of possible point mutations in the approximately 4.6-million-bp genome. This ratio implies, to a first approximation, that each population tried every typical one-step mutation many times." Lenski's conclusion is nonsensical because it assumes that the mutations are completely random and that each mutation has a roughly equal probability.


Again I ask you to show me the natural environment behind lenskis experiment. His experiment has been disapproved many times by science and statistics same way I just showed you in this post.

You know why I love science but hate scientists? Science gives you as it is but put a scientist in the mix and what you get are convenient lies to boost their reputation. Perhaps you need to research on lenski yourself

Cc seun, cloudgoddess

This is the worst refutation of the Lenski experiment I've ever seen. First, an experiment is supposed to be controlled in order to minimize outside interference. Like, seriously?

The experiment was practised so meticulously that the general size increase that was seen in two separate colour-coded bacterial tribes was found to be caused by the change in expression of 59 genes. From two separate tries with no intermixing. Only similar conditions.

When a particular trigger of the bacteria evolved the ability to digest citrate at about generation 33,000 they tested several frozen specimen across generations and found that specimen after generation 20,000 were more likely to start digesting citrate. No sample before then was able to do the same thing. This implies that we probably witnessed the development of a beneficial trait through successive mutations. Could it be some form of biochemical inroad made by mutation? Maybe.

But seriously, trying to fault this experiment would never help your argument. The entire report is available on the internet. Maybe you should read that.

naijadeyhia:
So the new traits are called evolution?

Evolution is the development of new genetic traits over successive generations.

naijadeyhia:
So if the trilobite had a hard exo or endoskeleton what did its ancestor have ? Surely for it to have an endo skeleton somewhere in its ancestral line there must have been one with an endoskeleton as well as that endoskeleton did not suddenly appear. If it did suddenly appear then I can also demand to see a turtlebird appear too.

I doubt that a transitional skeleton (something cartilaginous?) or shell (like a leather-back turtle?) would survive over a billion years before turning into some form of organic compound.

naijadeyhia:
Second rebuttal.


According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away.

Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people—until it is examined quantitatively, that is!

For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.

Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.

But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."

The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.

All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!

*drops mic again and walks away*

Evolution is not a chance event. You completely failed to factor natural selection into your calculations. Also, I hope you realize that the most common type of mutation is the neutral type. Not only beneficial mutations would been influence evolution.

cloudgoddess:
Interesting.

But you must remember that believing in something doesn't make it true. No matter how emotionally & psychologically attached someone is to their God concept, at the end of the day, if he/it isn't real (which is extremely likely for several reasons), all they're doing is wasting their limited time on earth praying to a nonexistent entity. I'd rather live my life to the fullest than waste it tied to false hopes.

Do you truly think spending a large fraction of your time dedicated to beliefs that are only .001% likely to be true, is a valuable use of your time? Do you think a loving God, if he actually existed, would allow people to believe in so many false gods without giving clear, irrefutable evidence showing which one is true? Would he/it purposely allow such confusion?

Everyone, no matter what beliefs they hold on their brains, will lose all cognitive function upon death. What you guys are claiming is that after your brain (responsible for all of your senses and self-identity) shuts down, you will somehow still be conscious. That is what atheists are extremely unconvinced of. There is simply no evidence to suggest that consciousness can live on without a functioning brain. Even living people can lose their consciousness, senses, & personality by suffering brain damage.

Another constellation of wrong facts.

The last time I checked, The chances and probability that the universe was created by God still by far outnumbers the probability that the universe came to be by any other means. And yes, thats even scientifically speaking.
Yet u say its "extremely likely that God doesnt exist"'

Again u say belief and consciousness ends at the level of the brain.
Well sorry, many atheists more intelligent, have even been defeated by that argument.
Coz there are even scientifically documented episodes of Near Death Experiences (even some atheists included) who were certified dead and came back and reported what scientists know little about (hence they label paranormal).
Please google about "Near Death Experiences".

CoolUsername:
This is the worst refutation of the Lenski experiment I've ever seen. First, an experiment is supposed to be controlled in order to minimize outside interference. Like, seriously?

The experiment was practised so meticulously that the general size increase that was seen in two separate colour-coded bacterial tribes was found to be caused by the change in expression of 59 genes. From two separate tries with no intermixing. Only similar conditions.

When a particular trigger of the bacteria evolved the ability to digest citrate at about generation 33,000 they tested several frozen specimen across generations and found that specimen after generation 20,000 were more likely to start digesting citrate. No sample before then was able to do the same thing. This implies that we probably witnessed the development of a beneficial trait through successive mutations. Could it be some form of biochemical inroad made by mutation? Maybe.

But seriously, trying to fault this experiment would never help your argument. The entire report is available on the internet. Maybe you should read that.

Again I suggest you read up the lenski report and put that report side by side with my argument. If you know science or understand the language then it would hit you right between the eyes that lenski lied.

CoolUsername:
I doubt that a transitional skeleton (something cartilaginous?) or shell (like a leather-back turtle?) would survive over a billion years before turning into some form of organic compound.

How convenient right? Somehow all proof vanishes or there is always an excuse why we cannot have tangible proof. How pathetic and convenient scientists can be don't you think so?

If I told you I owned a car and everytime I come to visit you I come a bike an you keel asking me about my car and i always have an excuse to give you about why I didnt come with it....like engine troubles, traffic jam, and so on. I am sure you would begin to wonder if I actually do have a car.

naijadeyhia:
Oh so you have no choice but to accept evolution?

Ok let me ask. This may seem spiteful but its just for the purpose of this question.

If Obasanjo dies and his skull is observed would it look more human than ape or it would be inbetween? Assuming same specimen had a spinal chord issue so could not stand up straight same way we have the elderly today all bent over due to spinal issues and you put both such a skull with such a skeleton what would you get?

Dumb question.

CoolUsername:
This is the worst refutation of the Lenski experiment I've ever seen. First, an experiment is supposed to be controlled in order to minimize outside interference. Like, seriously?

The experiment was practised so meticulously that the general size increase that was seen in two separate colour-coded bacterial tribes was found to be caused by the change in expression of 59 genes. From two separate tries with no intermixing. Only similar conditions.

When a particular trigger of the bacteria evolved the ability to digest citrate at about generation 33,000 they tested several frozen specimen across generations and found that specimen after generation 20,000 were more likely to start digesting citrate. No sample before then was able to do the same thing. This implies that we probably witnessed the development of a beneficial trait through successive mutations. Could it be some form of biochemical inroad made by mutation? Maybe.

But seriously, trying to fault this experiment would never help your argument. The entire report is available on the internet. Maybe you should read that.

Nonsense. The bacteria could already digest citrate in anaerobic conditions. The only difference between the samples and their descendants is the fact that their descendants digest citrate in aerobic conditions due to being constantly exposed to it by Lenski.

DeSepiero:
Dumb question.

If its a dumb question then its safe to say science is dumb and evolutionary theory is dumb. I say this because 300 yrs from now man may be taller and slimmer or even having bonelike projections on their shoulder (so science assumes) . So if such a skeletal fossil is found then would they not call it our evolutionary ancestor?

Prove you are smart.

Seun:
Yep. The first 'living' creature is believed to be a simple self-replicating molecule, which slowly evolved into the first primitive bacteria.

SMH. You actually believe this crap.

naijadeyhia:
If its a dumb question then its safe to say science is dumb and evolutionary theory is dumb. I say this because 300 yrs from now man may be taller and slimmer or even having bonelike projections on their shoulder (so science assumes) . So if such a skeletal fossil is found then would they not call it our evolutionary ancestor?

Prove you are smart.

Lol.
I don't need to prove anything. Assuming i need to, you can't understand how smart I am when you don't understand biology.

DeSepiero:
Lol.
I don't need to prove anything. Assuming i need to, you can't understand how smart I am when you don't understand biology.

Then prove me wrong and let the internet community see how smart u are.

Remember the internet never forgets

UyiIredia:
Nonsense. The bacteria could already digest citrate in anaerobic conditions. The only difference between the samples and their descendants is the fact that their descendants digest citrate in aerobic conditions due to being constantly exposed to it by Lenski.

That's actually a great argument for evolution.

tempem:
Am interested in evolution,( am not saying I just want to start learning about it, I want to believe)

Ok stop here.

This thread is sickening. We've had a biologist with a self professed PhD deny evolution. He offered some pretty inane arguments but at least he seemed to know a bit more than you guys.

I've never seen such a thread were ignorance has been so celebrated. You say you want to believe but you've been informed on this thread that evolution is not a belief.

As someone posited earlier, it is intellectually downgrading for anyone to reply your queries.

You and the OP are the ones who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.

Nobody who can spell the word evolution asks why there aren't ants with human heads or why there are still apes today. Before you critique something understand it first.

CoolUsername:
That's actually a great argument for evolution.

It isn't

jayriginal:
Ok stop here.

This thread is sickening. We've had a biologist with a self professed PhD deny evolution. He offered some pretty inane arguments but at least he seemed to know a bit more than you guys.

I've never seen such a thread were ignorance has been so celebrated. You say you want to believe but you've been informed on this thread that evolution is not a belief.

As someone posited earlier, it is intellectually downgrading for anyone to reply your queries.

You and the OP are the ones who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.

Nobody who can spell the word evolution asks why there aren't ants with human heads or why there are still apes today. Before you critique something understand it first.

Evolution is a belief as well as a theory. A messed-up theory for that matter. To say evolution is not a belief is silly. It is. Just as with any theory, it is a belief as well.

naijadeyhia:
How convenient right? Somehow all proof vanishes or there is always an excuse why we cannot have tangible proof. How pathetic and convenient scientists can be don't you think so?

If I told you I owned a car and everytime I come to visit you I come a bike an you keel asking me about my car and i always have an excuse to give you about why I didnt come with it....like engine troubles, traffic jam, and so on. I am sure you would begin to wonder if I actually do have a car.

But other species exist. Haven't you seen the archaeopteryx?

UyiIredia:
It isn't

They developed the ability, didn't they?

UyiIredia:
Evolution is a belief as well as a theory. A messed-up theory for that matter. To say evolution is not a belief is silly. It is. Just as with any theory, it is a belief as well.

It's even sillier to say evolution is a belief. Is germ theory a belief as well? Gravitational theory?

Uyi you are better than this. I know you know better.

naijadeyhia:
Then prove me wrong and let the internet community see how smart u are.

Remember the internet never forgets

Its a waste of time, unless I'm gonna get paid because I'll be teaching you stuff you don't know.

But to give you a tip of the iceberg, y'all still have the outdated classical genetics mentality towards evolution rather than the next generation genomics.
I'd rather argue evolution with a genomics expert than with a geneticist.
So which category do you fall ?

cloudgoddess you just embarrassed your self with that post up there. i went throught the link and i can confidently said that what he wrote here is far different from that link.bt lets assume he copied the flaw research frm that link why dont u,refute the claims and prove him wrong?? as far am concern you still have not given us the reasons for the outcome of the first cell.. i dont even know the different between u guys nw and the religious people. any sane person,that read this thread frm the begining will know that this guy has a point.,. it seems like u guys can nt counter him and u nw resort to claims that he copied it.. let me ask u ,were u there when charles darwin was establishing the evolutional theory??. what then is the fate of prospective atheist that is reading this thread, how will they view u guys.??

jayriginal:
It's even sillier to say evolution is a belief. Is germ theory a belief as well? Gravitational theory?

Uyi you are better than this. I know you know better.

Yes. Germ theory and gravitational theory are beliefs as well. Any theory in fact is a set of beliefs about how the world works.

CoolUsername:
They developed the ability, didn't they?

They already had the ability to digest citrate. Just under different conditions.

jayriginal:
Ok stop here.

This thread is sickening. We've had a biologist with a self professed PhD deny evolution. He offered some pretty inane arguments but at least he seemed to know a bit more than you guys.

I've never seen such a thread were ignorance has been so celebrated. You say you want to believe but you've been informed on this thread that evolution is not a belief.

As someone posited earlier, it is intellectually downgrading for anyone to reply your queries.

You and the OP are the ones who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.

Nobody who can spell the word evolution asks why there aren't ants with human heads or why there are still apes today. Before you critique something understand it first.

Lol.. No wonder your mentors who propounded it has no answer to the foundation of their belief which is "how did life begin?
The more scientists look deeper, the more they see the evidence of a designer.
They can't even picture an evidence that the prokaryotic cell evolved.

Even the outer part of the prokaryotic gives evidence of it being designed.. The inside, that's even a mystery to them.
If evolution couldn't answer why we are here? What's the basis that we evolved from that cell? What?

Vick4rill:
cloudgoddess you just embarrassed your self with that post up there. i went throught the link and i can confidently said that what he wrote here is far different from that link.bt lets assume he copied the flaw research frm that link why dont u,refute the claims and prove him wrong?? as far am concern you still have not given us the reasons for the outcome of the first cell.. i dont even know the different between u guys nw and the religious people. any sane person,that read this thread frm the begining will know that this guy has a point.,. it seems like u guys can nt counter him and u nw resort to claims that he copied it.. let me ask u ,were u there when charles darwin was establishing the evolutional theory??. what then is the fate of prospective atheist that is reading this thread, how will they view u guys.??

You know what. I sincerely love this thread.
If the foundation of the theory is missing, what happens to other theories hat are built on this assumptions?
The theory of evolution that cannot explain the origin of life will crumble.

Please, read briefly the structure and function of a "simple cell" and see whether what you'll find out will be proof of chance or evidence of a brilliant design.

Some reasonable/respected scientist say that even a simple cell is far too complex to have arise by chance on earth.

Cc:
Cloudgoddess
Seun and others.

tempem:
You know what. I sincerely love this thread.
If the foundation of the theory is missing, what happens to other theories hat are built on this assumptions?
The theory of evolution that cannot explain the origin of life will crumble.

Please, read briefly the structure and function of a "simple cell" and see whether what you'll find out will be proof of chance or evidence of a brilliant design.

Some reasonable/respected scientist say that even a simple cell is far too complex to have arise by chance on earth.

Cc:
Cloudgoddess
Seun and others.

Theist/atheist debates are always a time wasting endeavour, no one can change sides as a result of such encounters. Theists always employ the " heads I win, tail you lose" maxim. If a scientific process is well understood like the cell or germ theory, the theists jump in and claim that because the process is understood to be very complex validates their God and only their God came create or design such complexity. If on the other hand a process or phenomena is not yet fully understood and remains a mystery, the theist will still use that to validate their God. The theists will say that the fact that scientists do not understand the mystery means their God is great.

Now how do you debate with such people?