₦airaland Forum

princfred:
You are a goat for thinking that wearing animal skin this day will make you civilized.

i have educate you enough bro, but it is not in my power to sensitize you from your acute ignorance, it will take the essence of quality expert to do so, bye for now eru oyinbo.

princfred:
In your little mind people fighting with cutlass defeated those with fire power. How stupid can you get? Mind you, you were not talking about animal skin in form of belts as what Awolowo was wearing. Now did whites use guns to force you to were long-sleeved shirt why not keep tying wrapper and animal skin as full regalia like Awolowo since sticking to the past is the greatest thing your African brain got from history.

will you not stop with your illiteracy, man ,people are reading your comment, the dude did not even know Muslim won the crusader war, you are seriously brainwash. should animal skin be limited to cloth only?the white brainwashed you to value their way of dressing better than you. it is even more powerful than gun. ''brainwashing''. you are suffering from it. am still wasting my time debating someone who has no to zero knowledge of what he is saying. bye

princfred:
Its shameful till this day they gave to stop you from carrying out ritual sacrifice and the rest. I guess the Europeans Awolowo were negotiating with were naked. Did they use gun to stop you from wearing animal skin? Why not continue . I guess your arrows were do superior they could have helped you fight against slavery and hitler. What ever development Africans had then was so lagging that they were useless and had to be replaced by better things from the west. Whites done already develop farming machines, guns and rockets you dey here they boast of hoes and arrows that Africans had then. If Africans were so developed why they no use their weapons and inventions defeat whites.

DAMM, you are so brainwashed not to know that animal skin is still wear today. we have it if inform of bet, shoe and bags even in form of jacket. you must be so primitive in your thinking. this dude do not even know white settle in Africa as far back as 14 century, AFRICA already had guns before then, the mali empire deals with kushite in Egypt. they do business in form of trade by barter, they were exchanged of guns and military tanning, the mali king then was the richest in the entire world. your master saw this juicy opportunity and put our progress on hold. and as for the technology, Europe stole the idea during the crusader war from the Arabs, when they fought the Muslim. your European master were fighting with cutlass and sword and the Muslims were using fire power(the idea they took from china in the usual business trip)). you need to learn history boy. the deficiency is show in a very big part of you.

[size=8pt]

princfred:
Go back to your dark ages alone and wait donkey years for your own renaissance, black man. Now just crawl back to the cave and bushes/mud houses half naked and re-invent the wheel while you are at it as the entire world embraces and learn from each other since your vain ego cant allow you join civilization.

lol, which pat of the remote world do you hail from? as for me, my tribe were not naked, we have Aso ofi that was made out of quality wool fabric, we have quality Ewu etu that was made out of animal skin, and lot of eyes friendly beed as ornament to beautify our dresses long before the arrival of the west. This is the cloth obafemi Awolowo wore to negotiate for independence from your master in London years back. as for the house, we live quite very fine than some of your master, aborigines of Australia were once bush dweller, but we have grown to separate bush from house, we know bush belong to animal and house belong to human. we craft our technology in hoe and cutlass, arrow and other metal works, we stumble upon our own chemistry through the use of herbs and plant , that is still used today to cure many diseases and so. this progress was put to stop when your master came, they say we must stop not just by mouth but by the use of gun powder ( the technology that originally originate from china as a result of chemical mistake), the worst part of it , they brainwashed you and your type of people. you now called your heritage barbaric while celebrating mediocrity. it is well .

superhumanist:
Very true. However, witch burning is a particularly christian practice.

Western european paganism from the celtics to the germanics is still much alive through catholicism, a type of christianity. Festivals such as Easter, Christmas and Halloween are pagan in origin. The christian cross is thought to have a pagan root of the sun cross and the concept of trinity probably has its origins of polytheism.

Early christianity were considered a reformed jewish sect and the ancient romans were heavily influenced by the east due to rich trading. Constantine tried to unite the roman empire with his new capital centered in Byzantium but later the empire was divided within few generations. Christianity served as a common ground between west and east romans.

It is just that Christianity use a very strong marketing arm that has crushed other cultures, subsuming their traditions which we can trace back from modern culture.(i have seen a lot of ifa teaching in the bible also which is about 1 thousand years old than the Jewish religion) though, i do not have the evidence if bible writer copy it from ifa teaching. but Personally, I mourn for the cultures of the European crushed by Christianity.

superhumanist:
Their religion fit in with their culture. Christianity has mixed over a thousand years with European culture. Christianity does not work with Asian and African cultures.

And let us talk about barbarism.

Here are the highlights of your christian Europe;
*Witch Burnings
*Slavery
*Crusades aka christian terrorism
*Catholic torture

Even Christianity was a brilliant mixture of European paganism. she adopt so many old European pagan practice.

superhumanist:
Boko haram is islamic. It is Arabic. It is foreign and not Nigerian culture.

As for technological knowledge among countries/nationalities/races, it is a circular and cyclical thing. Westerners learnt a lot from the Islamic Golden age. Everyone learns from each other.

As for now, Japan is on top of the technological game and not the West.[

it depends, on IT and military equipment japan is still far behind Israel and USA are doing well in this regard. Japan still use fax and many of the small scale business lack normal websites, in robotic technology, japan is doing better, but it can be compare to USA. in general, japan and Germany can be paired in automobile, excellent infrastructure. etc.

[quote author=princfred post=66940557][/quote]

princfred:
You want to enter women empowerment now abi? When did women empowerments become a big deal in Africa? Not a few case here and there? How did you manage to be so deluded? Even your president, like a real African man, said women belong to the kitchen and the other room in this 21st century in the world stage echoing the thoughts, orientation and culture of Africans . Whites still they beg Africans in this century to train the girl child and stop female genital mutilation and you are here blabbing dust.

YOU have to go personal when your so called rebuttal is finished. lol omo oyinbo. i wish i can educate you but you have to pretend and drop your ego for a moment, buhari is a Muslim not traditionalist. spot the difference.( even not all Muslim will agree with him) female genital mutilation is still practiced in Europe not African things only, enlightenment is still going on. with the bull shilt you split over the internet space, it does not sound as if you understand the subject you are attacking, let me educate you a a little. When Rome was conquered by so-called barbarians in 479AD, Europe descended into the dark ages. It was an age characterized by white illiteracy, disease, ignorance and superstition. For over 1,000 years, this was the situation of the white European, he was devolved and he was ruled by darkskinned men. However, he arose from the cesspit in 1500AD in what is called the ''Renaissance''

We African people will have get there by now, we were experiencing our own renaissance by then before the arrival of the European, your master stop us along the line. we will get there if only we begin to drop the copy ideology nonsense and adopt the pretty ones, even they themselves are reshaping in it ,how much us.

princfred:
Yes i have and its African culture. European culture was dynamic enough so they stopped killing of "witches" but because that of Africa was retrogressive, it took whites to come and stop the nonsense het were doing now you are still stupid enough yo advocate fir such inhumane culture to return as a true African idiot who abhors dynamism. Hypocrite why not leave cars and live in mud houses like your ancestors?

lol, have you seen your kind of self, when ghana empire was busy thriving with gold and salt, acquiring wealth and developing the living standard of their people, when oyo empire was giving chances for women to take lead in commerce, efunsetun aniwura ,iyaloja and co. madam tinubu of old lagos state known as eko employed over 400 men in her clothing industry, A fit the erropean saw and feel amazed. women were participating both in commerce and politics. Europe the so called citadel of democracy give women the permission to vote not until late 20th century. AN India professor once said if you want to know how civilized society is , ask for the role of woman..

princfred:
Your culture is so angelic it was condoning the killing of twins, human sacrifices, burial of certain people with head of others, going to evil forest for God knows what Etc. I guess there is nothing demonic about all that in your African sense.

have you seen a laid back culture? or have you seen cuilture that remain stagnant? even European were once primitive and backward. old women with suspect-able character that was yet to be understand as menopause were labelled as witch and they were tortured to death by stoning or by hanging.

princfred:
The African culture was based on strictly adhering to traditional pattern of behavior and any deviation was highly and easily punishable at the whims of chief and chief priest. Nothing dynamic/no room for dynamism about that. Even now you are advocating for Africans to lay back to their old ways, the ways of their ancestors what tge hell is dynamic about that?

Asians and the rest of the world learnt from whites and whites learnt from others including even Africans and evolved but black man in his egotistic un innovative culture cant easily appreciate something better (if its not from his own great grand fathers) to embrace and improve. Open mind makes for better judgement but the African orientation operates on a closed mind ideology as questions are not entertained nor empirical proves highly sought after.

poo you split there, the tradition is not separate from religion, it is our culture and at the same our heritage, no One cares if osun adherent give credence to ogun, even an obatala adherent respect the taboo given by shango adherent. IT is not about which religion or orisha is superior, it is about what ifa says that the babalawo convey. punishment were only given to those who disobey the central moral that is implement by the kings and instructed under the advice of the chiefs and babalawo known as oluwo. likewise in the igbo culture , the red cap chiefs spare head the affairs of the town with the advice given by idibia. and so also is the hausa who is govern by seriki and revived advise from galadima, that is why it is easy for the Christian to penetrate us, we care less, we only become aggressive when they started demanding for destruction of our cultural customs and tradition. even the proponents of the pagan religions simply didn’t have the same zeal, or fanaticism, for their beliefs that the Christians had for today, they are less fanatics . Those with a keen interest in maintaining the religious status quo or cultural system were a distinct minority -like the babalawo and the chiefs , compare to the rest of the society.


lies, africans were doing well with each other, the kushite and the ghana empire were trading and exchanging military knowledge. we are more open minded and that is why Christianity stays today. paganism is non structured religion, it follows no particular format apart , but on the other hand, Christian religion was brutal over pagan religions , they use two particular standard .''sales and marketing'' they aggressively marketed Christianity in our society . At that times it was hard to tell the difference between spreading religion and a military invasion. By the way, people who work in Christian marketing are known as missionaries.

paxonel:
Even orunmila worshipers were long referring to ogun worshippers as demonic before white men brought christianity, so it's African thing, not christianity. If you see christians having this kinda beliefs it is influenced by African culture.
out of point too

This is not true, any evidence? let me tolerate you for a momment

princfred:
Every culture was not destined to achieve thesame result. Not one that hated innovation .

No culture is laid back. evolution is constant.

budaatum:
You are insulting me actually, in post after post. But I am letting it fly. It says more about your position than it says about me.

It was you who introduced the idea of an 'absolute truth'. My own position is that things can be checked to determine if statements about them are true at specific places (Nigeria), or time (current). If you comprehended, you would have noticed the frames of reference by now, but no, you repeatedly focus on the twig you perceive in my eye without considering the forest growing in yours! And you want to claim relative difference when it is the frames of references that have changed!


See? There you go again with your insulting by trying to impose your reality on me!

If you refer to something as an "absolute truth", when we are having a discussion about objectivity and subjectivity, would it be wrong to assume that you do not mean by it, the subjective truth that I may cook up in my head, but the objectively verifiable discernable truth?

Please note that when I talk about any truth at all, I mean the objectively verifiable truth alone and of the type: "Buhari is the current president of Nigeria", and not some illusory statement that I cook up in my head like the false statement that, "Prince Harry is the current president of Nigeria", or the imaginary million pounds in my bank account!

Such illusions are not only objectively false, but to refer to them as subjectively true is oxymoronic at the very least, and meaningless!

lol. i know when to stop an argument and this is the right time. maybe another one next time. thankfully i have passed my message. you may remain like this if you care.

budaatum:
You kitchen sink throw these references about, but I wonder if you understand them at all, and that's if you read them in the first place.

"In its root meaning, then, phenomenology is the study of phenomena: literally, appearances as opposed to reality. This ancient distinction launched philosophy as we emerged from Plato’s cave."

A perception of truth defined by my own frame of reference, is at best a truth that is subjective to me. As soon as I claim my subjective truth is the objective truth, I expect you to insult me vaxx, and rightly so!

Do tell me if I am wrong.

lol, i have it in my disposal, if not i will not be able to throw it to your face, you lack comprehension, that is just it simple, that article only provide a better approach to what we called truth , telling you human truth is his own subjective experience, and what you called reality may be an illusion as the receiver of Nobel laureate (philosopher Tagore) put it and i quote ''the absolute Truth is which cannot be conceived by the isolation of the individual mind or described by words but can only be realized by completely merging the individual in its infinity. But such a Truth cannot belong to Science. The nature of Truth which we are discussing is an appearance – that is to say, what appears to be true to the human mind and therefore is human, and may be called illusion''. . The table which I perceive is perceptible by the same kind of consciousness which I possess.

I AM NOT INSULTING YOU, I JUST WANT YOUR MIND TO WORK BETTER. I AM CHALLENGING YOUR MENTAL CAPACITY.

EVEN after enlightening you that empirical statement cannot be subjective, you are still repeating this poo for the purpose of argument. your lack comprehension my man . i correct you overtime, any element or statement that can be proven empirically is not subjective, it is objective, likewise i also correct you making statement like that of your claim is objective statement because it can be be verified, scrutinized and observed. you are still repeating your normal mistake. i am done biko. it is either you lack understanding or it is intentional , maybe doing it to cover shame when your ignorance have been exposed. i have given it to the viewer to make a judge. if i do not know , i read thru the lines rather than argue. @budaatum

kovah:
these planets are not important to a lion when he is chasing his prey...Is it?...The only living things dat bothers about the solar system is d human....The animals have accepted d universal concepts dat provide d seasons dat provide their nutrients...U don't see a shark having a philosophical reasoning when it's hungry... Obviously u want to put ur own perception on me to accept your own reality...Lol

Truth has a way if adapting to each ones prerogative. Your perception of truth is defined by your frame of reference. As your reference changes, so can your truth. little did budha know lion truth maybe difference from human truth even shark or my favorite dog. budaatum if you have been reading the links i post to you, you will not be repeating this fallacy. please before you make an attempt to reply me this time. go through this topic. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/. Anyway i like the analogy you used when you say (i am paraphrasing you)
the thrillions you have in the bank is 1 and 0 in a computer'' cheers.

budaatum:
What you posted does not claim truths do not exist. It purely gives a survey of views on the topic. And you might notice that I do not go about throwing irrelevant references at you. My point is a simple, "if there are no truths, why are you throwing what you claim is true at me?" Or aren't you?

Besides, the term, "absolute truths" was introduced by you when it suited you to do so. I gave a simple example, "Buhari is the current president of Nigeria". I also gave you an objective reason why it is true and you never gave anything back claiming it isn't!

So I simply repeat, is the statement "Buhari is the current president of Nigeria", a statement any rational minded person would claim is not objectively absolutely verifiably true today, 22 April 2018?

AM done on this blind argument, i will tolerate it again if i notice i will be exploring a new breath of knowledge from you. i cannot continue the argument i am not benefiting. it should not be only me presenting, it should be both of us. get yourself some book and better your understanding, i saw this flaw in you earlier even before i change your subjective perspective. IRE O

budaatum:
No one is arguing relativism with you! There is nothing relatively true about the statement Prince Harry being the current president of Nigeria!

And I never rejected subjectivity! But if by "subjective evidence", you mean subjective like "because I said so", then you must be tripping. So, in case I err, define " subjective evidence" please!

And I never said I was error free and have posted on here where the showerhead taught me the folly of aiming to be perfect! If you cared for the objective truth, I would tell you that my ability to ensure I am infallible is fallible.



“Are you absolutely sure of that?”

I cringed when you introduced the idea of "absolute truth" vaxx, but decided not to hold you up on it in order to keep to the discussion at hand.

That said, I am amused that you who claims to read philosophy would not know that there is a lot of argument on the topic.

"Absolute truth" is defined as inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts. For example, it is a fixed, invariable, unalterable fact that there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares.

Absolute Truth vs. Relativism
While absolute truth is a logical necessity, there are some religious orientations (atheistic humanists, for example) who argue against the existence of absolute truth. Humanism's exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism. Humanist John Dewey (1859-1952), co-author and signer of the Humanist Manifesto 1 (1933), declared, "There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes." Humanists believe one should do, as one feels is right.


What you are claiming here is that everything is subjective! Yet, you yourself have, in our discussion claimed some things are objective! So which is it now, is everything subjective and objectivity is impossible, or can there be objectivity?

Do me a favour, stop peppering your comments with patronising and condescending statements. A person who claims to read philosophy should be able to philosophise without constantly patronising the person he philosophises with!

you lack comprehension? am done with you on this . maybe another one next time.

@budaatum, while i was giving you an academic references that was published under rigorous study and scientific research , you are here honoring me with non substantial references from allaboutphilosphy and got question. mtcheew, this kick out your response, please use academia website for me next time. wikipedia or rational wiki is preferred if not universities journals.

XhosaNostra:
Why choose only one when you can have it both ways? "Zionist churches" in South Africa, combine both African culture & Christianity. At the end of the day we're still Africans. We have our own identity & beliefs, which we had long before the missionaries ever set foot on African soil. It seems unfair to forsaken one for the other, hence there are churches for people who choose to fuse the two.

we also have something of such in NIGERIA, (the cherubim and the celestial) i remain tolerance to all of them, however i may become close minded to the fundamentalist.

HigherEd:
What do you know about African shrines and paganism. Because some missionaries have fought the fight, you simply don't how dark African religion was. This blood sucking religions took the life of many in form of sacrifices. But if you are such an advocate for African religion why don't you visit Atan Ogun state at 12 midnight. I am not sure they've found someone to sacrifice for their dead king. When you get there and the Oro people are about disloding your head from ur body you would realize how beautiful African religion are.

first of all, the period the Christianity marketer known as (missionary) fought the fight with africans was our primitive period when superstition was the order of the day, yet this period is characterized by growth and Renaissance., even if the so call Christianity marketer did not come, we will have easily reach enlightenment on our own. yet the so call church of Christ today are still embroidered with superstition,let me honor with some of them that sill practiced today, but we pagan has decided to be tolerant about it instead of fighting it. ( superstition 1)During a Christian service a wafer is turned into the body of ‘God’/Jesus and this Archbishop believes he is eating the body of Jesus!! To the objective observer that is 'cannibalism' – a Christian ritual based on Pagan beliefs. this can be found mostly among the Catholics and Anglican. with few Pentecostal.(superstition 2)Wine is turned into the ‘blood of God/Jesus’ – and this Christian thinks he is drinking the blood of Jesus/God during the service, also it mostly common among the Catholics.(superstition 3) Pouring water over your head in Baptism removes ‘original sin’ (Information from the other-side informs us that is absolute nonsense!)this cut across every church. (superstition 4) You confess your ‘sins’ ( which is taken from a Roman pre-Christian era ritual) to a priest or independently. ALL your ‘sins will forever be forgiven’. Information from the other side tells us that’s absolute nonsense because no one can modify the Law of Cause and Effect. this cut across all churches.(superstition 5) even if you are like Hitler and manage to say you are very sorry for your sins before you die, you will go to heaven! all this cut across all church. this are just some few. you can see in this case African paganism needs to spread his gospel but we decide to remain tolerance to allow peace to reign. YOU SEE HOW DARK CHRISTIANITY RELIGION IS? AND PLEASE GIVE ME THE CONFIRMATION DETAILS OF ANY SHRINE STILL USING HUMAN AS SACRIFICE. I WILL TAKE IT UP MY SELF I PROMISE.

budaatum:
What Ogun an Sango above saw is not relative, but observed at different times! Or perhaps the sekete they drank with their dinner went to their eyes!

There is always more than enough error in your feedback, be careful next time , you are error free even if is small, this is is how you reject subjective evidence, not until i shown you a lot of theories telling how much fallacy you are making. this is another one again. According to an academic source. this is what relativism imply, '' Relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them. More precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that—at a high level of abstraction—at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter, but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied. Relativists characteristically insist, furthermore, that if something is only relatively so, then there can be no framework-independent vantage point from which the matter of whether the thing in question is so can be established'' Even distractor who dismiss it could not substantiate their evidence brilliantly. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/. you can go further and learn epistemology in relativism as well. And with the absolute true, this is what a famous philosopher says, ''There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths''.– Friedrich Nietzsche.There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths. – Friedrich Nietzsche: Human, All-too-Human.

moreover, if you were the type of person reading lot of philosophy articles, which i doubt, if not you will not be putting me into this kind of forth and back argument, you would have find no mention of ‘absolute truths’ and no philosophers intent on demonstrating the existence or nonexistence of this apparent species of truth. The reason for this is not a lack of interest, on the part of contemporary philosophers, in the issues that people have in mind when they proffer the locution ‘there are no absolute truths’. Philosophers have many things to say about these issues. Rather, the reason why contemporary philosophers eschew talk of ‘absolute truths’ is that they find such talk to be an impediment to careful, rigorous debate. when i say there is no absolute true, this is what i am expressing.

– Anything that we take to be true is revisable
– We can never have a unique-eye’ view of the universe
– All truths are a matter of opinion
– Truth is relative (to culture, historical epoch, language, society etc.)
– All the truths that we know are subjective truths (i.e. mind-dependent truths)
– There is nothing more to truth than what we are willing to assert as true

Unless, you have a proven solution to all this PROBLEM, and i bet you if you did, it will make you the greatest philosopher on earth, ever far better than socrate and plato. however let me post an academia article that give details about truth and absolute for you to learn. .https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/. they are more to it but go thru that first. i may also recommend some books for you later.

OkCornel:
I appreciate your well structured response.

It is satisfactory to an extent.

My only disappointment is that evolution has nothing to do about creation (going by your feedback), hence might not satisfy my curiousity in that regard...

Using growth as evidence of evolution is not what I am looking for...

What I was looking for is something to corroborate something like the homo-habilis to homo-erectus to homo-sapien to whatever man might evolve into in the distant future... OR DNA test results on any identifiable remains (fossil) of the common ancestor of man and apes...

I also wonder why the homo-habilis and homo-erectus no longer exist today...; or whatever happened to the common ancestor of man and apes...

Do not be disappointed, evolution does not treat origination, and nether does big bang , what they attempt is how and not why, since why is out of the reached of science. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming. try and read from here. https://www.wired.com/2009/11/speciation-in-action/

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow or when uni cellular organism turning into multi cellular organism. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

i read a book in the library( the name escape my memory for now)but you can do a goggle search, it is assume that Homo - Erectus likely evolved into Homo - Heidelbergensis in Africa and Homo-Erectus in Eurasian interbred with the Neanderthal and Denisovan and became extinct just like the Neanderthal and Denisovan became extinct after breeding with modern humans while homo habilis could not just survive the competition of survival. the survival of the fittest just like hobbit of Indonesia and neanderthal of Europe went into extinction. but in anyway, home erectus and homo habilis do not make evolution a dead end. it is just like asking what happened to your childhood self.

[quote author=OkCornel post=66905762]I

am not ignoring the common denominator which supports the LUCA theory... I am stating that the theory focuses on the similarities (common denominator) without taking cognizance on the origin of the differences in DNA structure of various life forms...

at the chemicals level, which is lthe DNA structure, we share lot of similarities than difference, Believe it or not, plants and animals are related. All life on earth, Scientists confirm this in the LUCA evidenve, though our DNA, which is sometimes referred to as the "building blocks" or "blueprints" of life. It is Stored in the nucleus of every cell of every living thing, DNA is a long chain of amino acids that form together in ways to create a specific living thing.

Cement can be used to build houses...but not all houses are made entirely of cement... (I have a reason for including this statement

)all living thing are made from matter, what we have now is recycling system. The end product of cement or iron. Or glass or whatsoever that is used in building house is dust. A very vital component of matter.

I'll be waiting for the materials on evolution theory...

evolution is not about creation, Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to biodivlersity at every level of biological composition. Evolution is not about how the species arrived, she only treat how the species evolve.
You have to study the difference. Science has not come up with a theory of such.

Note: I am not debunking evolution...however, I don't think it has ALL the answers to the origin of life...

sure, but it has the most convincing answer for now, you are an evidence of evolution. You are once a toddler now an adult. This is a proof.

OkCornel:
The assumption that all life forms descended from a common denominator focuses more on the similarities in the genetic code of life forms and ignores their differences...

NO, It focus more on the DNA structure, which give the probability a high chance.

What accounts for their differences and variations?

photosynthesize,but this can be explain scientifically,Plants photosynthesize because they have chloroplasts, while animals do not. Chloroplasts are the descendents of endosymbiotic cyanobacteria. Animals have endosymbionts as well, and acquired them by the exact same mechanisms that plants do (also shared with all other eukaryotes). It just happens that the ancestors of plants happened to get an endosymbiotic that could photosynthesize, while animals did not.

You can create different products at the same time from a raw material (This supports the LUCA theory) by complimenting it with other materials (The LUCA theory ignores this part)... I stand to be corrected...

you are ignoring the very critical component of life that is traceable and take about 90 percent of every living creature. AMINO ACIDS. i could go on here, but let me make it simple, do any living things composed of little or no amino acid?

I haven't seen a response to my enquiry on how complex life forms evolved from simple celled life forms... it's a gaping hole in the evolution process... are there theories that can explain this?

AS soon i get home, i will send you some links to some hypothesis that has been developed on it. but i am afraid to tell you, you are yet to understand evolution, evolution is about Evolution is about being the fittest to pass on your genes in your current environment. It’s not for the good of anything, not for complexity, not for ultimate longevity of a species, not for intelligence, not for making anything better. Just passing on genes that’s it.

[quote author=budaatum post=66902528]

I am not saying there is no truth. There is truth, but it has nothing to do with the number of people who agree. A billion people can agree on a lie. We could be deceived that what is untrue is true. Objectivity and truth are not determined by vote! The standards that determine a thing is objective, or the truth, do not include the number of people who say it is!

And neither do i say so, objective and subjective truth can be placed on the platform of rationalization, we both may conclude RELATIVELY on numerous evidence pointing toward us. truth is not democratic, it is a respecter of no one, be it science or logic. truth remain absolute. we can only try to reach it but NOT the truth in his openness itself. that is why our relative truth we continue to shape, re -shape until when the truth decide to reveal itself.

Remember the tree falling in the forest with no one to witness it? Is it true that a tree can fall in a forest if there is no one to see it fall? We can reach absolute truth, once you abandon the idea that it is democratically determined, or impossible.

this is fallacy, our relative truth, be it subjective and objective is subjected to time, space, circumstances even resources and all this are not fixed. so it is impossible for human to reach absolute true. orunmila invite sango and ogun for a dinner, after the dinner, they decide to play (ayo opon) orunmila then decide to test their knowledge, he said he had a gift for both of them which is located in different room in his house, shango open one of the room, only to find a beautiful and pretty damsel waiting to be behold , he was very happy at least he will marry
and she will become the latest of her old wives, he immediately run to orunmila,o ye my friend , i have seen the gift, please let me have her, orunmila respond not so quick, wait let ogun give us his feedback, ogun also open a room only to find a well arranged beautiful and well sharp war equipment. he was also very happy as this equipment will be good for hunting and at the same time during the period of war. so he also approached orunmila to let him go away with this equipment. orunmila said ok no problem, since you have seen the gift and you all like it, go in there and have it. shango run quickly to the room to get hold of his pretty damsel, only to find an ugly wretched looking woman, he became sad as this what not he saw earlier, he said orunmila , i am not taking the gift again, orumila reply why? he said the damsel has become ugly, orunmila laugh and reply, do you not know, she will grow to become like this after years of consummation, she will definitely grow old. ogun also come back to give the same report, orunmila also reply, that the new weapons you say in there will soon become old fashioned later as it cannot be new for life. so there is relativity in what they both saw but was not absolute. the wisdom behind this little knowledge test is no human true can stand the test of time as nothing is permanent. so in this context, i salute the brilliance philosophy of orunmila who said absolute truth is unreachable. to socrate who said we should aim for absolute true. even traffic light is a good example, it is green in one moment and false the next.

My ma onced said, "buda, if people tell you something, why don't you try it before abandoning it". So one Sunday morning in 2000thereabouts, I followed her to church. On the Tuesday, I went to Bible Study, on Wednesday, I assisted the vicar in publishing the newsletter, and on Thursday, I volunteered teaching English in the free school set up by the church, and I was the secretary of the Parochial Church Council and the Men's Group. And I did this all religiously, as in regularly for 12 years. I have to inform you that "belief" did not catch me.

When I was a child, going to church on Sunday was the only way to get out of the house, so I went, religiously. It piqued my interest, as in what the heck they all saying and worshipping, so at 9 I began reading the Bible and finished it by the time I was 12, and realised I did not have the disease called "belief".

I have been studying the idea of gods and religions from the spiritual perspective, archaeological perspective, religious perspective, historical, psychological, sociological, mythical, mystical etc for decades now and have done so because of a search for knowledge and a lack of belief, and all the studying makes me unable to believe even more.


I would say the above is sufficient to determine that I have often given the idea of gods way more than second thoughts numerous times. So please stop projecting your subjective opinion about the amount of investigation I have done regarding the gods. One does not boldly state that gods are figments of the imagination on a whim!

"Belief" is what you get once you have closed your mind and become unwilling to consider further. "Knowing" is what you get to when you have considered all the evidence there is and have nothing further to consider, but will consider it if you happen to find further evidence to consider.


Judging a statement objectively does not make the statement objective! It just means you have objectively tested the statement itself and it may still remain a subjective unverified statement.


My stock response to this is, "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things." It's Alice's response to the Queen in Alice Through the Looking Glass.

One cannot open ones mind to all sorts of nonsense vaxx. And there is no need to fill the gap with gods out of sheer laziness! One can objectively check the evidence even if at the end ones conclusion is subjective to oneself.

I AM WEAK TO WRITE LONG, I WILL ADVICE YOU TO BE OPEN MINDED JUST LIKE HOW YOU DID ON THE CONCEPT OF SUBJECTIVITY WHEN YOU FIRST DENIED IT. GOD is not be find in the gap, every thing is a MICROCOSM of GOD HIMSELF

OkCornel:
Thanks once more for your reply. It's the comparative method employed by Science in studying earliest life forms I am challenging...remember its also probability we are dealing with here...

All living organisms having a common denominator (or material) in their genetic code...does not necessarily translate into these organisms evolving out of this common denominator...

I wonder if this view point has been considered... i.e. the possibility of this LUCA replicating rapidly such that different/distinct forms of life (animals & plant) can evolve separately at the same time...

There's also the [b]missing of link of how life evolved from simple celled organisms into more complex life forms [/b]i.e. into tissues, organs, systems...e.t.c.

there are lot of hypothesis on it. but before bringing in the hypothesis, look at this dynamic changes in the horse leg and hoof, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse. Everything that can be placed on the Phylogenetic tree from the first multicellular organisms onward were either intermediate species to descendents living today, or are lines with no descendents because they went extinct. Some of the branches can be traced pretty well along the route of evolution that led to us. Most would be divergent, leading to our cats and dogs, birds, whales in the sea, etc.

i will like to see your reasons why you think all living things cannot exist from common denominator?Are there bacteria/single celled organisms in remote locations on Earth which are not related to the rest of the life on Earth? my guess is NO, therefore the scientific approach on the comparative method seems to be more accurate than saying otherwise, Plants and animals are both eukaryotes, and that immediately makes them more closely related to one another than either is to all the bacteria and archaea. In addition to that, there are many single celled eukaryotes that are more distantly relatedly to both animals and plants than animals and plants are to one another.

Being both eukaryotes, plants and animals actually share many, many similarities pattern. They use almost same enzymes to replicate their DNA, and the exact same types of ribosomes to produce proteins. Their cells have nuclei, and linear chromosomes packaged with histone proteins. They have active cell cytoskeletons, mitochondria, internal membranes and vacuoles. They both have meiosis, mitosis, and reproduce sexually .https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071011142628.htm.

we are all FAMILY

OkCornel:
Thanks for this piece.

Just to be sure I understood this correctly... it means all living organisms here on earth descended from LUCA...

What exactly is this LUCA? What are its properties?

From the part of your quote I bolded...this is more of an opinion from probability...but that notwithstanding, let's continue with this discussion...

.There are bacterial fossils as old as 3.465 billion years ago (https://phys.org/news/2017-12-oldest-fossils-life-earth-began.html) but these aren’t LUCA. There are traces of carbon and haematite that seem to have come from living things that might have lived as much as 4.2 billion years ago (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21377) but those traces don’t tell us much about what LUCA was like.

Science only learn about what the earliest life forms by using the comparative method. If all living things have a particular attribute then we can assume that LUCA had that attribute.All living things use a similar set of amino acids to create proteins, so LUCA must have used this set.

All living things use RNA, ribosomes, and mostly the same genetic code, so LUCA must have used RNA, ribosomes, and the same genetic code.

All living things use ATP as an energy source, so LUCA must have used ATP.

All living things generate ATP by letting protons (hydrogen nuclei) through a membrane, so LUCA must have used the same mechanism.

He/SHE is the last common ancestor of plants and animals, it said to lived around 1.6 billion years ago and was a single celled organism, neither plant nor animal itself. It's probable that plants and animals separately evolved into multi celled organisms but the basic cellular processes are homologous. there is no fossils of LUCA yet.

OkCornel:
In summary;
Banana and plantain share the Musaceae genome

Human and apes share the hominid genome

Yam and Cassava share the Dioscorea genome (I think)...

If Human and apes share a common ancestor... does the same thing apply to Yam & Cassava and Banana & Plantain?

All known living organisms on earth share a common ancestor. It is referred as LUA or LUCA,(( Last Universal –Common– Ancestor.)) LUCA is the ancestor of bacteria, archaea, and eucaryotes. From the wikipedia article on LUCA: "A universal common ancestor is at least 10^2860 times more probable than having multiple ancestors''. This common ancestry explains why plants and animals share genetic code to the extent that genes from animals can be spliced into plants and will continue to be transcribed into proteins in the same way as when they were in the original host. For example, using jellyfish genes to make a tomato glow in the dark (via recombinant DNA technology) . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_common_ancestor

[quote author=budaatum post=66890281]

No! Not true. I could be talking through my subjective ass with nothing objective to support it. Take the following possibly subjective statements for instance: "Vaxx has a potty mouth". How can that possibly be true? Or the aforementioned subjective opinion that, "Prince Harry is the current President of Nigeria". Can that be true in anyway whatsoever? What objective evidence supports either statement?

it is like saying,is it truth that there is no truth, which to me is nonsense,Both subjective and objective truth can obviously exist. When two people agree, not just on a truth, but on the rationale justifying the truth even if it is ridiculous, then it becomes more objective and hence we say objectivity establish subjective evidence. what we cannot reached is the absolute true as it is shrouded in mystery. this mystery may explain God to you if you give in a second thought. however, i consider myself objective in areas such as country,political party, ethnicity,social class. i had no blind loyalty to any of them. though i may be subjective in my own philosophical believe system which is rooted to my tradition.

I assert that subjective statements can be objectively true if there is independent evidence to support them! This was what I tried to explain with my one litre jug that was half full and half empty because I accurately filled it with half a litre of water! I also equally assert that subjective statements can also be false, like when I subjectively talk through my ass!

well, if subjective statement is judged empirically,it become scientific and hence become objective, both subjective truth and objective truth rested on time,place, resources and circumstances. so the truth they hold will always be shaped by and adapted to our rules, perception, experience. as for absolute truth, it is the one we yet don’t know, and I am afraid to tell you it is unreachable in our current existential status. I might have just explained God to you.

Finally, you admit that the faith of the scientist is a different faith to that held by a believer, which is based on no evidence whatsoever. (Now you remind me, I'm still pissed off you dilly dallied round the block without just saying this and being done with it!)

Would I be wrong in claiming the faith of a scientist is based on objective evidence, and not just a subjective convenience?

i have never treat religious faith as the same as scientific faiths, religious faith rested on GOD knowledge, scientific faith rested on assumptions that must first be presume and the evidence is by apparent phenomenological relation. you should try and goggle this concept to learn more. scientist evidence is an interpersonal truth between human and the universe.

Learning is why I have continued to have this discussion vaxx. You will find from now on that you and I will always consider the objective and the subjective when we make any claim or read those of others.

good, it shows you are not close minded. you cannot be open minded and still remain an atheist, you now have one leg out of the river Rubicon.

And, it is your subjective view that I am arguing, or that I have ever rejected the subjective view, though I cannot objectively prove that I am not arguing!

Good, i am glad you can now at least rationalize the difference.

Let me tell you a story. I sat in a pub with a friend of mine twenty years ago and we continued a discussion about objectivity while his girlfriend went to get tickets for a show they were going to watch later. About an hour later, she returned and was very unhappy. The tickets were twice as much as she had budgeted, and a bus had splashed water on her from a puddle by the roadside. My friend, wrapped up in our discussion, unpityingly told her to be objective, to which I responded "how can she be objective about the water splashed on a body that is subjective her or the objective and subjective extra money she had had to spend?" That experience showed us the complexity of what we had been discussing.

The fact is, everyone has a subjective view or opinion, and to reject it is pure fallacy of the stupid ignorant type or the blatant lying type, and not being aware of it at all is simply not really having evolved to the point of recognising it type.

I, for instance, am known to be an atheist, but if you asked me, I would tell you that I do not believe gods exist or not, but that I categorically know that gods do not exist. I go a tard further by claiming gods are the figments of the imagination created in the minds of those who create them. And I would insist that I have objectively come to these conclusions, by which I mean I checked the evidence for and against before coming to a conclusion.

Now go listen to butter, who would categorically insist on the existence of at least, a God, a conclusion he would insist he came to after checking what he too would claim is the objective evidence.

The fact is really that we both are stating our subjective views, or we would have both placed our objective evidence on the table and one of us would have had to shut up by now! But you ask us still, and we'd both claim we are being objective and presenting objective evidence, "or can't you see", we'd ask one another, while claiming the other's subjectivity blinds them to what to us seems objective.

I am not arguing with you vaxx. I find you worthy to discuss with because you give me something to consider. It is by considering that I tend to learn to separate my subjectives from the objective.

With this open mind , i do not see you subscribing to atheism for long, there is light on the tunnel. safe bro.