A New Evolution Theory.....

But all that does is repeat the position that I'm asking about. Even the author himself seems to have a change of heart a few chapters later, when he appears to find enough meaning in enjoying the fruits of his labor and eating, drinking and being merry.

How? There is no other situation I can think of when we must see something as eternal in order for it to have value or meaning.

We can learn from our mistakes, correct them and mature without any need for eternal life. It is as if you were to find a small diamond in an endless field of dirt and to say to yourself, "Well, the dirt is obviously more valuable, because there is more of it."

In view of the prospect of the scarcity of life, we can find value or we can relegate it to meaninglessness. I just have a hard time understanding why so many people choose the later and then try to convince others to do the same. Not only that, but they put this nihilism at the center of their faith, using it to justify their belief (wishful thinking at this point) in God. I don't need life to eternal to value it or to find value in it. I don't need to be the apple of a god's eye in order to value my life.

This comic puts it more bluntly than I would, but it describes my feelings on the subject rather well: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3112

 

Sigh. Evolution. Is. True.

 

No it's not. You're using intelligent design to explain a random act of nature. That's like asking scientists to go through a junk yard and create something with what they've found and then trying to say a great and mighty wind blew into a junk yard, picked up some junk and created the same thing. Or give a million monkeys a million type writers and one of them will write Shakespeare ---- no they won't.
One is a conscious effort by scientists and the other is a mindless wind blowing aimlessly.

 

I think you need to live a life as the opposite sex. You can't learn what you need to from one perspective and you're not likely to learn all that must be learned in one lifetime.

 

That's like saying if two scientists put rabbits in a cage and they breed, then that is proof that rabbits never breed naturally and must always be guided by an intelligent force.

 

Sigh. Stupidity. Is. True.

 

I'm not the one denying the scientific consensus and basic rationality. The only real 'alternative' (being charitable with the word) to evolution is creationism, and that hypothesis is complete nonsense.

 

You are right, and the meaningless statement is a bit over the top, but I'm sure you got my point. We can learn and grow in knowledge and wisdom with out eternal expectation, but to me that just doesn't make sense. If the lessons that I have learned in life and the mistakes I've attempted to correct go up in smoke or rot in a casket then the only meaning to my life would be what I could have passed on to others, and there is value in that.

It was my hope that others would post evidence in an attempt to prove their challenges, it matters not if they are parroting someone else if they fully understand what they are presenting as evidence. Classes are starting so I must bow out of these engaging debates. It's funny that I found spiritual and religious debates on a political forum. Those of you that like to post sarcasm and degrading comments really aren't able to contribute anything meaningful and only prove your inability to engage a debate intelligently, to the educated and intelligent atheist and agnostics I do respect your opinions, challenges, and thoughts because I was once in your shoes.

 

Hardly. Let me try again. You have scientists, in a sterile lab, working over many years, with their machines, computers and chemicals, trying to create life and claim that if they do create life, this proves that nature could have accidentally done the same thing.

 

I must have mssed where I denied that evolution is the consensus and of course the most logical and rational explanation for the current life, human and otherwise on this planet. . That said I would never apply " real " to creationism which is just as nonsensical as intelligent design.

The last discussion on this thread that I remember participating in was about the possibility of 100% certainty which I more than adequately demonstrated is possible.

 

Ah, I sort of assumed. Also, no, you can never be 100% certain about anything, and you most certainly haven't demonstrated anything to the contrary.

 

As long as their work is primarily focused on recreating scenarios (such as atmospheric conditions) that can exist in nature as well, they are completely right.

 

You can't convict someone of murder, because the judge can't recreate it.

 

Evolution was actually observed by Darwin... he was a horse breeder before he created his theory. Some things are kind of freaking obvious.

 

Well, it is already a scientific fact that there has never been a show of proof that a non-biological external environment had the capacity to control, guide and direct the internal trajectory of a biological system's DNA/RNA output. So, until that massive problem is solved in science and by scientists, Darwin's idea of natural selection and/or the theory of evolution are both prime candidates for Hollywood script writers not genuine laboratories of scientific discovery.

Second, we know through genetic migration paths precisely where Human life has its origin and we know that place to be Sub-Saharan Motherland. What we don't know is precisely how or why.

Third, we now absolutely know that Human predates Hominid. We know that because no indigenous Sub-Saharan Motherlander ever had a drop of Animal DNA in their gnome. And, we know that Sapien Sapien does in fact have Animal DNA in its gnome and that it descends through transition from Neanderthal, who descends through transition through Hominid, which we know itself had the closest 50/50 ratio of Animal (Primate) and Human DNA. Ergo, Human had to have predated Hominid by definition.

So, this drives back to a time on planet earth when there were no fully sentient, fully corporeal, bipedal and upright beings walking planet earth who were not Fully Human. At some point that changed and Animal-Human Hybrid was introduced into the fully sentient, fully corporeal, bipedal and upright category of being. Thus, we have Fully Human and Animal-Human Hybrid on planet earth today.

The only sane question that remains is: How did that happen?

This should be the biggest news story on planet earth, yet nobody is discussing it. Here we have two (2) species that look very similar, function identically in the macro biological sphere and yet they are clearly different in that one has Animal DNA in its gnome and the other has zero Animal DNA in its gnome. Remarkable, yet completely untouched by the "Media" today. Fully Human and Animal-Human Hybrid. Side by side on the same planet. Yet, no one seems to care about how that happened.

How did Hominid get here and what or who joined both Animal DNA and Human DNA together, since they cannot naturally procreate together to produce a third species (chromosomal impossibility). And, why is the media not investigating what should be the biggest question in World History?

Mind blowing. Absolutely, mind blowing.

 

Can you clarify your comments? Who are the fully Humans and who are the Animal-Human Hybrids?

 

So, is the "theory" of "evolution." People constantly confuse biological sub-system transitions with wholesale systemic biological transformation. This is the pseudo-science having been taught in schools for quite some time now. Even Nova and PBS go to extremes to perpetuate such mythical fantasy, in order that they might keep receiving grants and donations from those wishing to foster such grand schemes of highly implausible rhetoric.

Evolution and Natural Selection were latched onto by those wishing to maintain the false premise of White Superiority. Period. End of story. Full stop. It has absolutely nothing to do with the real science of extending, guiding and directing the natural trajectory of nucleotide formation and cell generation, which gets to the heart of what DNA is all about and how it is created. That core science is not represented in either Evolution or Natural Selection.

DNA/RNA sub-systems and their output must be controlled, guided and directed in order to produce anything, let alone fully sentient beings. The path of direct ascension from single celled organisms to the complexity of full sentient beings, if evolution and/or natural selection were at play would be so voluminous that planet earth would be completely overrun by all manner of Humanoid-like beings and the anthropological record would be stacked to high heaven with such recordings. Yet, none of that exists anywhere on this planet.

Within the biological taxonomy we do have variable species but nearly enough permutations to get from single cell to fully sentient being without a lot more than what we see. Animal, Hominid, Neanderthal, Sapiens - is simply far to narrow a channel within which you would stumble upon Human without seeing all manner of Humanoid-like sub-creatures with an even more massive dictionary and catalog of genetic variations within itself which we find nowhere in existence on this planet. Not even remotely close to what the mathematical statistics would suggest we should find if evolution and/or natural selection were real.

So, we are left in the dark (still) on the origin of Human. But, at least we do know the location or the so-called "birth place" of Human, Sub-Saharan Motherland. However, there is a lot more we don't yet know about what came after Human, Animal-Human Hybrid. This is the reason why evolution and natural selection as still being prostituted as real science.

 

Just to clarify, I'll re-post what the science says. This is not my theory. I'm simply reading the science. Don't shoot the messenger. I only work for Federal Express, I did not create the package being delivered:

All Non-Africans Part Neanderthal, Genetics Confirm

Non-Africans are part Neanderthal, genetic research shows

Neanderthals’ DNA legacy linked to modern ailments

The Neanderthal in All of Us

Notice how they use a very misleading title on this last website (The Neanderthal in All of Us). I post it anyway because down a few paragraphs from the top they also say the following:

So, when the use the title "The Neanderthal in All of Us" and then follow up with the above, they are clearly not being honest. Neanderthal DNA cannot possibly be in someone and not be in someone both at the same time. The Western Academics don't want to dwell on this. This information has been out there for a few years now, but you never hear about it in main stream media. In fact, if you don't have a computer and you live in the Western world, you might not know about it at all.

There are clearly two (2) different variant species that are fully upright, fully sentient, fully corporeal and bipedal walking this earth. One is Fully Human with no Animal DNA and the other is Part Human, an Animal-Human Hybrid variant species.

And, again I'll ask the obvious question: Where did Hominid come from and how did he get here?

It is a fair question that must be asked and eventually answered as Human clearly predates Hominid. We know that now. We know that because Hominid itself is part Primate and part Human AND Sub-Saharan Motherlander has no Primate DNA in its genus. Ergo, Sub-Saharan Motherlander is Fully Human and must have predated Hominid.

This is startling evidence that nobody seems to even think twice about. Two (2) different genetic variations that appear the same on the surface. Yet, one has Primate DNA and the other does not and NEVER HAD Primate DNA anywhere in its lineage. Wow! Seriously, if anyone can think of a more important question to obtain answers to, I'd sure like to hear about it.

We've been taught for years that we are ALL Human. That is not not true. Some of us are Fully Human and some of us are Animal-Human Hybrid.

 

You're just lying and playing word games. Your first and second points are lies. Your third point is not mind blowing, and if you understood the theory of evolution you would understand why it is not... You point out that only you are amazed by it... so do you think maybe there's a reason for that? Like... maybe only you are thinking what you're thinking?

 

Why am I not surprised that you offered nothing but Ad hominem and nonsequitur reply while proclaiming that the point you made was not clearly shown to be the only lie worth correcting?

Playing word games? I posted links to science that tell you exactly what I said here and your reply was "playing word games." So, you disagree with the science? I'm a little confused, you don't seem coherent in your reply at all.

If I understood the theory of evolution? I just gave you in plain written English the WHY behind the theory of evolution's failure to explain the existence of Human. And, your reply is to insinuate that I don't understand that which I defined for you in stark terms that cannot be misunderstood by anyone having a 12th grade education?

Come on, little guy. You're going to have to come up with something a but more weighty than that, if you are going to argue your case with any degree of completeness and/or correctness. You were given science. Otay? I gave you a scientific and statistical basis in concept for understanding WHY Darwinism and all of its Corporate Sponsored Bull Crap throughout the 20th and into the 21st century is junk science - not real science.

Now, if you would be so kind, please explain to me how you derive |3| from |1+1|? That is the mathematical equivalent of what you've been sold with Darwinism and its insult to your intelligence or lack thereof. Do you not understand the meaning of Absolute Value? If you do, then please explain to me (because I'm such a low IQ idiot) how you get from one Absolute Non-Biological Environment to any Independently Derived Absolute Biological System?

Can you do that for me please, because I'm so dumb and I don't even have blond hair and dimples..... yet.

 

In the meantime, I'm going to ask the question yet again:

Where the hell did Hominid come from and how did he get here because he's part Animal and part Human, just like all Animal-Human Hybrids happen to be?

Yet, NO Sub-Saharan Motherlander has ever had Animal DNA in their gnome.

Explain it, Lucy?

 

Humans are the only animals on the planet that have chins. Neanderthals didn't have actual chins. So if you see an animal that has a chin it is a human. If humans and Neanderthals interbred the human traits were dominant and caused all of the offspring to develop chins. In today's world all humans are basically identical.

 

I to find this fascinating and I'm attempting to get a little more understanding of the research. I do see some challenging questions though, I will hold off until a learn a little more. Thanks for posting this.

 

Word salad with woo woo dressing.

 

Actually I am 100% certain that you assumed without any basis for your assumption. Next!