₦airaland Forum

asalimpo:
are proposing a contrived possibility and pushing it as the case?

A naked woman,
in church premises,
transfixed,
after church members prayed ...

Naked man falling from sky in ghana , with breasts like a teenagers.. Confesses ..

Naked women fell from sky as christians prayed into the night
commanding the moon and sun
..
Fell in balls of fire, confess ...

Naked woman in church premis found in early morning (not on the roof)

naked woman found on roof of church on benin ...

Add the dots ..

Use ur head and be honest.
I know ur one of those who try to explain away uncomfortable truths like this.

Humans are falling from the SKY, and SURVIVING? Were these people wearing parachutes?

^^^ See this one.

N)aked woman on roof of church= sorcery. Chai!

Madness isn't even considered, even though mad people walk around n)ude in Africa.

That's like finding a homeless man sleeping under the catwalk of an Atlanta church and assuming that he was casting a spell on the foundation of the building.

sinequanon:
Humour is fine, but it cannot double as a logical argument.

It is obvious that he is creating wiggle room because his argument is weak.

You STILL don't know what he is claiming to be fact, and what is sarcasm. So how can you debate with him?

This is just a way of being able to revise and obfuscate his assertions according to the replies.

Done persistently, it is called trolling.



You can appeal to emotion, but the fact is LOGIC IS serious, dude.

You have to take your pick and not pretend to be talking science when you are not.

I don't mind jokes, sarcasm, insults etc.

But they have to be separate from the logic, otherwise the discussion becomes illogical and pointless.

You need some p)ussy. It will help relieve some of that pent up energy you've built up.

sinequanon:
Another example...

https://www.nairaland.com/2017963/evolution-eye

So you're inviting people to witness the train wreck of an OP from which you summarily fled!!?

EDIT: My bad, you fled from the one on evolution, preferring to remain vague about your "other mechanisms" rather than state them.

Dapo777:
What do you call such a GOD?

An invisible, non-existent one.

sinequanon:
Well, we are not going to proceed as you have shown yourself to be rather too thick.

I guess you've run out of mechanisms, or perhaps you read that nonsense you posted in your OP again.

dalaman:
You see people that disagree both laying claims to the Holy spirit. The holy spirit is just a construct believers invented to strengthen their belief.

Every NL poster who identifies himself as a Christian claims to have a legitimate relationship with Jesus. Yet some of them disagree whether his mother was a real virgin or an allegorical one. I don't understand it.

JMAN05:
Your illustration is far from the point I want to make. My point is that God has an ability to foreknow the future, but He doesn't use this ability always as the scriptures indicate.

If the scriptures don't say that, where did you obtain this information about HOW God uses his superpower abilities?

kevoh:
In a sane country, people would use those camera phones they are brandishing to call for help from emergency response services and do their best to save her before help comes . Of what use is the recording of a na.ked mad woman in your phones if not to satisfy the desires of perverts!

The pictures or videos will serve as proof that magic is real.
I guess. Exactly what makes her a witch is beyond my intellect. I'll just let the geniuses put two and two together.

sinequanon:
Use tests that distinguish between HGT and VGT and other mechanisms that lead to morphological similarities.

If there are no reliable tests for a particular trait, then you don't just say, "HAHAHA, I'll pick VGT because I am not used to anything else."

It is unlikely that there are no tests for ALL the traits.

You are the one that said..



Presumably, you mean "potentially could have occurred". In which case, you investigate, considering ALL the options, and find out which ones may or may not originate from heredity. You don't just ASSUME HEREDITY.

Before we proceed, you must state what "these other mechanisms that lead to morphological similarities are.

You can no longer disguise nonsense as eloquence, state these "other mechanisms" here just like you stated HGT and we'll go from there.

Whole genome analyses are used to separate analogous genes from homologous ones, but according to you, evidence from genes cannot imply heredity. That's what your OP says anyway.

We're not allowed to examine similarities, not even a multitude of similarities and patterns of organization. We're not allowed to use genes.

That's why I asked the question. What possible test can there be other than prayer?

Genes are used to determine paternity, but they're off limits as far as common descent is concerned. Does that make sense in your head?

sinequanon:
Your problem is that you find it difficult to string together a logical argument.

You don't even know how to negate a statement. This is a basic skill in scientific and logical argument.

All the balls could belong to Joe.

Natural converse (i.e if the above is false) is this...

Some of the balls may not belong to Joe.

Not weah logic...

None of the balls belong to Joe.

How can we debate if you can't do simple logic?

Look at this sentence again, and try to negate it properly..

All of those similarities you list here could have occurred because different species of human beings were affected by the same bacteria.

Remove your head from your an)us and take a deep breath. You'll feel a lil better, trust me.

asalimpo:
i hav this movie on my torrent app. I thought it wudnt b worth it and paused/(or is it deleted) the download.
I'll get it and check it out.


Leap of faith is also nice . Is 90s movie.

You won't be able to turn away from this movie. Trust me. Too many psychos living in their own little bubbles.

I hope Leap of Faith is on Netflix. It looks just as interesting.

sinequanon:
I've answered this. Why are you repeating yourself?

I can say humans are similar visually, genetically, morphologically, behaviour-wise.



And?

I have no clue what your point is.

Unless you are now agreeing that similarities in humans need not all be homologous?

You're way out there dude. So common ancestry can't even be inferred between human beings again? HAHAHA.

How do you determine which similarities are homologous among human beings and which ones are not?

ojimbo:
if you were the girl. Will u compasate the man?

No. I would have picked up a heavy object, and hit him in the head with it. No one can knock my hustle, not even a fellow preacher.

sinequanon:
Humans are similar in lots of respects. Visually, genetically, morphologically, behaviour-wise.

Lemme put your words in quotation marks, so that perhaps your memory can be jolted.

"Non-inherited singular traits or behaviours could give rise to multiple non-inherited traits and behaviours."

You wrote that. Now, if the mitochondrion was once a singular "non inherited" bacteria, on what grounds can you say that humans are similar? All of those similarities you list here could have occurred because different species of human beings were affected by the same bacteria.

Misogynist2014:
Abi o. Just wanted to cool off. Imagine weah telling me that a whole Super Sport was lying! We all know they had nothing to loose nor gain. So you mean they should have announced the stuff? Incredible! Lame arguments as usual. Even if his great grand father wakes up today to tell him Jesus is in heaven, he will still find an excuse.
One thing with nonesense is that, you only have to confuse yourself that you have made sense.

People who want to impress by predicting a scoreline would say the score on TV. Most TV stations have only a few seconds of delay time.

When you bring a box and an envelope, and a piece of paper, you're performing a TRICK. Tricks confound the imagination, but they're still tricks.

Reminds me of a Michael Douglas movie called Falling Down. What an awesome movie!

Douglas is having a horrible day filled with suicidal thoughts and desperation, when he strolls into a Latino neighborhood where Mexican gang members tell him that he's trespassing on their territory and must give up his briefcase or face the punishment.

What happens later is comedy GOLD. I half expected the woman on the bus to pull out a gat and start shooting.

These Gods are all mute or something. If they were really speaking to people, there wouldn't be no point of keeping the books of myths.

One could simply ask God a question anytime.

sinequanon:
You keep losing track. This is what the OP says. Why are you repeating it?

wrt to dinosaur passing traits to birds, we were talking in the context of HGT. You said that you can ignore HGT because it has not been observed from eukaryote to eukaryote, forgetting that it needn't be direct. When I point this out, you go back and repeat that HRT is not being considered? So it is not being considered, because it is not being considered? I think you need to go and organize your ideas, and stop going round in circles. Or perhaps the whole thing is too complicated for you to keep track of.



Nope, it is you losing track and going round in circles and winding up with the wrong question.

Anyway, I don't think you are going to understand. But the author you quoted did attempt to address the point. He's probably the one who could answer my rebuttal.

I'll leave it there.

You were putting words in my mouth, so to speak, that's why I had to make my statement clear. I wasn't restating anything.

I asked you about human mitochondria being an ancient bacteria that was engulfed by a cell. On what grounds then are humans similar since this bacteria could have been transferred to two or more different species of human beings? Remember you said that one HGT event in two different animals could potentially lead to a multitude of similarities down the road.

Maybe we are all distinct species of human beings and our perceived similarities are due to the same bacteria being ingested by our individual ancestors.

Misogynist2014:
I only gave one example. What about the man who was brought to gbam show sponsored by global, who eats broken bottles and blade. What about Ilan Smith who guessed who won the World Cup, the player who scored, the time he scored, the score line and consequently the team that won the world cup!!! At a time the world was in stand still, this man already knew what everything will end up in! Can science explain this? Don't you know the meaning of what he did?

Ilan Smith is an illusionist. You do know what an illusion is, right?

If he was really defying the laws of nature, he wouldn't have written anything down. He would have simply announced the score to the audience to the audience like a man. That's common sense.

The illusion involves the paper, envelope, and pen. I don't even believe TV tricks of that nature, because of all uncertain variables. Do you know if someone was NOT paid after signing a confidentiality agreement?

Predicting the score using one's mouth is magic. Writing the score on a piece of paper and locking it away on TV is an ILLUSION. There was an impressive sleight of hand somewhere during that event.

sinequanon:
So what? Two "full-sized" eukaryotes can obtain the same trait from the same prokaryote.



This is relatively recent and calls into question Darwin's "last universal ancestor" hypothesis.



Yes there is. Your premise that shared traits must have been passed from dinosaur to bird is incorrect. Shared traits could come from a prokaryote. In fact, the slug in the OP shares its trait with other species.

I never said that traits were passed from dinosaurs to birds. I said that common ancestry is the factor considered, not HGT. It's possible that birds and dinosaurs evolved from the same ancestor. That's not the same statement as birds descending FROM dinosaurs.

The possibility does exist that two non microbial eukaryotes could have obtained a trait from the same prokaryote. In fact, the mitochondria of plants and animals are eerily similar to a prokaryotic cell engulfed by endocytosis in the past.

Would it be reasonable to conclude that humans aren't related by common ancestry because our shared mitochondria could have originated from a bacteria?

Again, that's why one or two traits don't suffice. That's also why it's irrational to suggest that that a multitude of similar traits could have all arisen as a result of one HGT event.

I told you what your original question was from the beginning of this thread. You went around in circles, only to arrive at the question I asked on page one.

Remember, how are phylogenetic trees constructed in the face of HGT?

dhope:
u cud hav expressed ur mind regarding ur belief wit civility. nothing stop u frm using ur common sense to reply OP using d book u believe rather than calling one an old book of jewish myth. mtcheww..

I apologize if I sounded rude, but the truth has NO agenda.

The bible is a book of myths.

Misogynist2014:
You? Do you have proof that God doesn't exist? I was at a cultural show last week, come see how shango worshippers were swallowing fire without getting hurt! How was that possible? Doesn't this defy science and natural laws? This one can be confirmed by visiting Osun State, so don't tell me I have no proof.

Another article on fire eating. There's a school where students go to learn how to eat fire.

[b]Eat Up
Fire eaters don't literally eat fire. They place flames in their mouth and extinguish them. It's like snuffing out a candle with your hand, but more impressive. During their performance, the fire eater has to remember two things: one, fire and hot air move upward, and two, don't inhale.
A fire-eater starts by taking a wide stance to keep her* balance and tilting her head back while holding the torch above.


As she lowers the torch towards her mouth, the fire eater takes a deep breath and begins to exhale slow and steady. This slow exhalation keeps the heat away from the fire eater's face as she moves the torch closer to her face and places it in her mouth. With her tongue stuck out wide and flat, the fire eater places the wick of the torch (which should be cool to the touch—fire eaters often use Kevlar thread for their wicks) onto it and partially closes her lips around the torch in an "O" shape.

So far, so good. Now the fire eater has to extinguish the flame, and quick. There are two ways to do this. The fire eater can completely close her lips all the way around the torch, cutting off oxygen and killing the flame, or she can put the flame out with a quick exhaling breath. The second method is preferable for performances where the torch has been lit for a while and may be too hot to touch with the lips.

That's fire eating in a nutshell (though fire eaters have a number of other tricks in their repertoires, like vapor tricks, multiple torch eats and fancy extinguishes). It seems pretty basic, but to do it right and make it look good for a crowd, fire eaters learn the method and then spend years practicing. If this sounds like the kind of thing you want to make a career or a hobby out of, the Coney Island Sideshow School offers classes in the art of fire eating.[/b]

http://m.mentalfloss.com/article.php?id=20672

Misogynist2014:
You? Do you have proof that God doesn't exist? I was at a cultural show last week, come see how shango worshippers were swallowing fire without getting hurt! How was that possible? Doesn't this defy science and natural laws? This one can be confirmed by visiting Osun State, so don't tell me I have no proof.

Wiki has a page on fire eating. It requires diligence, pain tolerance, and lots of practice. Not magic.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_eating

sinequanon:
Non-inherited singular traits or behaviours could give rise to multiple non-inherited traits and behaviours. In fact, the slug example shows two traits -- the accommodation of chloroplasts from the algae and the supposed genetic transfer from the algae. It is unlikely these happened both at the same time. It makes sense that one trait can spawn several supporting traits. Similar environments and functions can also spawn similar traits by any method.

HGT occurs between prokaryotes, prokaryotes and eukaryotes, and between microbial eukaryotes. It hasn't been observed between full sized eukaryotes.

For this reason, phylogenetic trees depicting common ancestry in microbes of either archea, bacteria, or eukaryota ALREADY take this phenomenon into consideration.

However, there is no justification for implying HGT between dinosaurs and birds, so it's ignored.

Misogynist2014:
The one that grows at your backyard.

Is that where this God of yours is located too? In my backyard?

A naked woman on a roof. I call madness, or drug abuse, not witch.

Shollyps:
wat is going on here??

Nothing. These guys are involved in a heavy REM sleep fight.

sinequanon:
Weah

This is what I call an intelligent response to the OP. Thank you.

We can see that there are some molecular biologists who have reservations about HOW logic is used in philogenetics.

I hope you understand why I was unwilling to allow the trolls, who don't have the intelligence to even understand the question and issue, set the agenda in this thread.

Most of what you have quoted is just the author repeating his belief. We already know his standpoint. Repetition is not refutation. Stripping out the repetition and arm waving, these are his points..





i.e the morphological evidence can be tested independently against function and biochemical evidence (presence and absence is just a repetition of form/morphology).

But the two examples in the OP demonstrate shared form, function and biochemistry without common ancestry. The stripes on the moth have the same aposematic function as on the wasp, and the biochemistry of the slug has been laterally transferred from the algae.



I have just given two examples which are not common ancestry.

He has cleverly slipped in "or evolutionary relationship" to cover his azz. Yes, the examples in the OP are evolutionary relationships, but they are NOT common ancestry. So he is defending evolution as a whole, here, not common ancestry. Same old tricks.



This is his only real point (which flies way over the heads of all the trolls in this thread, LOL).

What he is trying to say is that there appears to be a branching pattern, which is what you would expect with common ancestry -- and inductive logic is reasonable. He is confusing "inductive" and "independent".

However, other mechanisms can reflect branching. The moths and slugs shown in the OP will have different varieties, showing a branching of the horizontally obtained features. This does not mean that the features were inherited. It may reflect different algae and mimicry of different wasps.

Yea, but you're still only looking at singular traits in the slug and moth. Stripe pattern is one trait. In the slug, exogenous DNA is another. It's unreasonable to infer common descent simply by isolating individual traits. Unless, of course, these traits originate in germ cells.

dhope:
OP. i think d right answer to ur question is that HE is just God and HE did dt because HE is God and HE is unquestionable. HE choosed to use His only son to redeem us frm sin and nobody can question Him on that.

And the basis for ignoring your common sense is an old book of Jewish myth, right?

Someone found a book, you read the book, and suddenly the contents of the book cannot be subjected to scrutiny from human beings.

This is unprecedented, to say the least.

MzNelly:
Man could no longer communicate with God.

News flash, I'm still unable to contact this God fella. Maybe I need to get a long distance plan.

Misogynist2014:
You don't beleve in God How did magic come into existence if God doesn't exist?

Which magic are you talking about?