A New Evolution Theory.....

I've been trying to explain to all of you that I am god this whole time.

 

1. Hominid is the singular form of Hominidae. Hominidae is a family not a species. So the family of Hominidae includes the following: the subfamily Homininae and the subfamily Ponginae. Homininae is divided into the tribe Hominini and the tribe Gorillini. Gorillini goes down to the genus Gorrilla. Hominini is divided into the genus of Homo, which is where we are, and Pan, which contains chimpanzees and the like. Homo contains the following species: Sapiens Sapiens(this is us), Sapiens Neanderthalus, Erectus, Habilis, Floresiensis, Heidelbergensis, and finally Naledi. Thus we see that ALL of us have Hominid DNA, because that is the common denominator between us and other Hominidae. Now that being said, all of the different species have their own unique bits too. That is why, when some of our ancestors interbred with our cousins the Neanderthals, some of us got their DNA. The Neanderthals didn't live in Africa, so obviously Africans didn't interbreed with them, thus no Neanderthal genes.

2. This brings me to point two. There is nothing in the research you provided that remotely suggests that the Neanderthals were less human than Sapiens. In fact one of them suggests quite the opposite quote "Neanderthals possessed the gene for language and had sophisticated music, art and tool craftsmanship skills, so they must have not been all that unattractive to modern humans at the time." here is the link you provided: http://www.seeker.com/all-non-africans-part-neanderthal-genetics-confirm-1765302858.html

3. Conclusion: While I don't disagree with you about asking where Hominidae came from, I must disagree with the saying that only Africans are purely human. Homo in latin means Man, so in that sense all of the genus of Homo is Man or in other words human. This means it doesn't matter if Sapiens interbred with any of the other species in Homo, since they are all human, Sapiens is still all human too. Look at it this way. A house cat is a cat, a lion is a cat, a tiger is a cat, a leopard is a cat. They are all different species, and all have differing DNA, but they are all still cats. Same thing with Sapiens, Neanderthal, Erectus, Habilis, etc. They have somewhat differing DNA, but they are all still human, not ape. Finally, since this all refutes the basis for your first statements, natural selection and evolution as described by Charles Darwin could have happened. Do we know that it happened that way? Of course not, but it is one of the best ideas we have right now to explain our existence. There are many others out there, creationism, transpermia, panspermia, and each has flaws and merits. The point is, no one can, with any confidence, say which is true from a scientific point of view. Some are only more probable than others.

 

Why don't you explain it to us, along with the paradox involved. Oh, I really think you mean pamspermia theroy.

 

Very wrong atheists by definition reject such things.

You are confusing not knowing answers to certain questions with belief in magic

 

Hydrogen.

 

Evolution does not try to explain the beginning of life.

Evolution is proven fact but is not concerned with how life began which is still a question which science is unsure of.

It is also irrelevant since evolution of the species through natural selection and mutation is proven but not dependent on explaining how life began.

Also there is no such thing as an evolutionist.

 

One would think, that if life, a single cell self replicating organism, could arise out of pure chance, randomness, that our know it all brilliant scientists could create life, without using chance and randomness. Using the elements that life is composed of.

And, that single cell self replicating organism has to have the ability to evolve, with a changing environment. Even a minute tiny change is acceptable.

If our brilliant scientists are not able to do this, by skipping the chance and randomness, then it is possible that they, and all of the true believes, are full of (*)(*)(*)(*).

I am not saying jesus and god had a thing to do with it. But I am saying some non anthropological Intelligent Consciousness, manifested the first self replicating organism, and it was manifested in order to evolve into what we would consider higher life forms, but guided by an intelligent Consciousness, that has nothing to do with the images man has created of god.

I will of course change my mind, easily, when a brilliant man, using high technology, creates a single self replicating single cell life form, with the ability to evolve to changing environment. How hard can it be, right? I mean, these materialists want us to believe that chance and randomness created life, a life that also could continue on by evolving. I just find that hard to place faith in. But evolutionists do not appear to have a problem with the faith they need. So, faith is a commonality here between the evolutionists and the religious. LOL

 

Make up your mind.

 

Time out, now if evolution is a proven fact, then it would know how life began, or at least have a good hypothesis. Reality is evolution is theory not fact, and a some of the science behind it has been fabricated and distorted. When you can demonstrate the evolution process then it would be fact. You can put whatever percentages you want on it's accuracy, but that means little or nothing until you can reproduce it.

 

There comments to correct your statements:

1) The noun (biological) evolution is a scientific fact. It is commonly defined (by the scientific community) as "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next". (Curtis and Barnes 1989: 974). Changes in allele frequencies have been routinely observed for decades. Evolution is a fact.

2) The Theory of Biological Evolution attempts to explain those facts. It is not a fact in itself but a scientific theory subject to the scientific method, including falsification.

3) Evolution (the noun) and evolution theory have nothing to do with abiogenesis, which separately deals with the question of how carbon-based life originated on Earth. Abiogenesis is a set of different scientific hypotheses currently being studied and tested. There is no scientific abiogenesis theory.

If you are going to challenge the biological theory of evolution, I can only suggest your first learn what it is, and what it isn't, before going any further.

 

And, yet absolutely none of that gets to the underlying point in any of my posts, nor does it rebut anything in my previous posts.

Which assumes facts no relevant to anything in my previous posts and rebuts nothing in my previous posts.

You cannot reach a conclusion without actually addressing the underlying premise in any of my posts.

You are not disagreeing with me. It is not my science. I did not do the primary research nor did I run or participate in any of the lab studies. I produced no papers and I proffered no thesis that needed proofing. All I did was post links to credible science that told you all Non-sub-Saharan "Africans" have between 4% to 20%+ Neanderthal DNA in their genome. By definition that means that all Non-sub-Saharan "Africans" are part Human and part Animal. The question is why?

The why comes about because what we call "Caucasian" is an extremely broad term that covers every single Non-sub-Saharan person on planet earth since the arrival of the first Sub-Saharan individual. I have not said that "Caucasian" and his variants are in-Human or not Human. I am simply saying what the science says, that anything which is part Animal and part Human must be Animal-Human Hybrid. That which has no Animal DNA in its genome cannot be anything but Fully Human in nature.

This is not a political argument for me. This is science and this is what the science is telling me. Now, if you have an argument then you have that argument with either the science itself or those who generated the data that supports their claims. I simply delivered the message to this forum.

Incorrect and highly simplistic for a billion reason. You don't take a post-fact definition and then revise the underlying fact to suit your needs. That's curve fitting and that's not wise. It will never lead you to truth and if you make a habit of curve fitting results you don't like, you end up deluding yourself in the long run and that opens you up or a reprobate mind. That is a mind that can no longer distinguish right from wrong. So, curve fitting is not just unwise, it is a flat out dangerous game to play with your own psyche.

What came first, the definition of Man, or Man himself? In that context, who defines Man as being Human and what post-fact definition is more authentic than the source for Man himself? This thought process is irrefutably on a higher level than going off on a website to pick out the definition that "fits" the curve.

Now, what are we told about Hominid himself? We are told that Hominid is both Animal (some form of Primate now probably extinct - we don't exactly know about the final disposition of that Primate) and Human. Well, just stop right there and use your head. Just use common sense. If one thing is a combination of two other things and the one thing cannot exist outside of either the other two things, the both of the two things must predate the one thing. This is perfectly natural, rational, logical and born in common sense. Ergo, both Animal and Human must predate the Hominid.

This was never difficult for you to figure out on your own. You did not need me to "reveal" some holy principle to you. The reason you never figured this out on your own is because you more than likely (by my paying attention to your written prose) live in the United States and you have have been just as brainwashed by our academic system as I have. We've all been damaged by that system. But, that system runs throughout all Western civilization and what you need to understand, whether you like to hear it or not, that system has always been predicated on proliferating the paradigm of White Supremacy and White Privilege. I know you don't like hearing that, but that's the reality and it always will be inside this Western Paradigm.

I've been talking about the Western Paradigm ever since I came back to this forum and this is part of that reality. In such a paradigm, you will be "schooled" and "programmed" in a very specific manner that subtly indoctrinates you into the belief that Caucasian is Superior to everything else. You may not like those words. You may not want to hear those words. But, you cannot honestly examine Western Culture and claim that those words are not abundantly truthful. In such a paradigm, you learned what? You were taught either directly or indirectly that Black People in "Africa" (a place that does not really exist because the people who lived there never called it "Africa") were living in the wild and swinging from branches because they were descended from Apes. This may not have been par of your "formal education" but it was most definitely part of Americans Informal Educational Process which is part of the Paradigm that be preserved.

In such a paradigm, you will be programmed to think that Human = Animal even when there is no logic or science behind the assumption. In the meantime and to reinforce the programming of the paradigm, you were never told about the Animal-Human Hybrid which developed right along side Human. This is the greatest story you were never told. If you do not understand this, you can re-read it until it sinks in. All our programming in this paradigm is flawed in this regard.

Look, this paradigm did some absolutely wonderful things, don't get me wrong. When Kennedy said were were going to the Moon in "this decade," that was epic. When our nation decided that it no longer wanted to deal with the devil and fought to break ties with its King, even through great sacrifice and revolutionary war, that was awe inspiring. When the nation decided that Slavery would be abolished, that was a sign of hope for moral correction. The technological and scientific accomplishments of this paradigm have been nothing short of revolutionary themselves.

The establishment of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, though it did not account for Native Americans and Blacks by way of a 3/5th compromise, still demonstrated the possibility of hope, renewal and transformation. However, through all of that this paradigm was and is still one that fosters the idea that privilege belongs to those it represents and it does not represent People of Color in ways that are equal or just. Those are the facts about the history of this paradigm whether one is able to recognize them or accept them as such or not.

 

Many of you keep missing the point. I specifically stated that you cannot and will not ever find any research anywhere on planet earth or anywhere within our galaxy for that matter, where there is evidenced non-random output (by definition that means resultant coordinated controlled cellular formation) of any DNA/RNA system stemming from random input from an external non-biological environment (by definition that means the physical environment outside the biological system).

If you want to know why this is true right now, go to my last quoted reply to Junkieturtle at the very bottom of this post.

The law of statistical variation will not allow for evolution to yield a straight line trajectory towards the outcome of fully sentient highly complex biological entities such as Human beings. Nature has NEVER done that with anything even approximating animal biology. Such a conclusion would require that nature have foreknowledge of the resultant biological taxonomy before the process of evolution began and at that point the process itself is no longer random. So, evolution argues against its own existence. That is illogical, irrational and it completely lacks common sense. Thus, it cannot be the answer to the question: How did Hominid get here? If Hominid ever existed at all - which is a completely different topic that I might post someday.

Now, I am more than willing to read any White Paper anywhere in the galaxy that contradicts what I just said. Show me proof that such a barrier breaching guided process between the non-random internal cellular environment and random external non-biological environment has ever produced guided trajectory leading to complex biological organism and/or its so-called "evolution." Show me the money.

If evolution were true, the earth and its upper crust would be filled with all manner of anthropological evidence showing extinct (naturally non-selected for continuation and/or further transition) sub-species at all levels of the alleged straight path between Hominid, Neanderthal, Sapiens and Human. That path is RIDICULOUS and the only people that buy into that crap are those who can't get enough science fiction from watching re-runs of Star Trek and those with an ulterior motive and propensity to dispense such hogwash as actual "science."

Which does absolute nothing but argue for even more variety of in the anthropological record and far more branching with the underlying taxonomy downstream between Kingdom and Class. That's a long way from Genus or Species. Evolution does not begin later in the taxonomy! It blows my mind that people can't sit down long enough to THINK this through. Evolution, if you are to take that nonsense seriously must begin in the taxonomy even well before the cellular level. Sure, we have what we think and what might look like massive variety of Classes and Orders and branches from those levels, but that is nowhere near the level of Life, and certainly nowhere near the level of Human Life.

You guys are wearing me out with the most basic of common sense issues. I've explained the differential and distinction already. All you have to do is think it through.

To Transform is to BECOME. To Adapt is to be REFLEXIVE. That which is to BECOME has properties of the REFLEXIVE. However, that which is REFLEXIVE need not have the properties of that which BECOMES. Thus, to BECOME you must be REFLEXIVE also. However, something can be REFLEXIVE without ever BECOMING something else.

When you step outside and it is raining you deploy an umbrella (adaptation). You don't become the umbrella (transformation). The part that evolutionists don't tell you about is that neither do you grow a shell to keep yourself from getting wet merely because it is raining. That would be evolution through transformation. We don't do that and we don't see that happening in nature. However, what we constantly see happening in nature is adaptation to the rain. Not transformation because of the rain.

If you don't like the water analogies then try radiation from our local star 8 light minutes away from earth. You step from a cooled and air-conditioned room in mid summer Sub-Saharan Motherland to outside in the open were the temperature is 108 degrees-F and the sun directly overhead with low relative humidity. You feel your skin searing in the radiation from the sun. You protect yourself by stepping back into the cool air-conditioned room. However, you don't step into the direct sunlight and begin the "abiogenesis" process of extending your existing biology with newly developed biological cooling system. Yes, you sweat. Itself is not evolution nor will your seating ever lead to you evolving into an air-conditioning unit or a natural shield against the sun's radiation energy. You will develop neither of those two things. Not now and not in 5 billion years of being under direct radiation from the sun.

Adaptation does not equal Transformation. Transformation does include Adaptation along the way as a naturally occurring process.

This should be crystal clear at this point. Evolution is and always has been pseudoscience.

Albinos, are genetic mutations caused by the failure of the OCA2 gene to produce the transport protein responsible for the production of melanin. That does not lead to the evolution of the species in Humans, no matter how much White Supremacist garbage one might read on a routine and regular basis. It is a genetic degenerative disease but we don't call it that, because we don't want to admit it. However, the fact of the matter is that is that naturally disposed Human Beings are in fact, hold on to your jock strap, Melanated. Yet, there is no evolutionary theme that comes out of such a genetic mutation. None. Never has and never will be.

I am saying that evolution argues against its own existence because it depends on a non-random process which is not possible given the statistical variation required to end up with increasingly more complex biological species. Now, you may not like the way that sounds but that is a rock solid short explanation for why evolution is junk science and fit for Hollywood production studios and not real world classrooms where young minds are at stake!

A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Let's not blow our minds on evolution drug. Just say no. I know it is seductive, and pretty looking and sexy in the way it rolls off the tongue: Ev-oo-looo-shuuun. But, it is flat out wrong. Just wrong. And, fooling around with that stuff will melt your brain and that's not a good thing. So, stay away from drug dealers peddling Evolution. Or, you may never come back to reality.

That's a fundamental error that novices make all day long. You are making this error in logic because you are putting the cart way before the horse. You fail to realize that the emperor has no clothes. You did not lay on the peanut butter before jelly. And, you are fishing for a needle in a haystack without even realizing that there is no haystack in the barn.

I've explained why this is so above in my reply. You will need to dig deeper into how RNAi works. It is called RNA "i" for a good reason and it is the "interface" in the RNA "system" that goes to the heart of my explanation above. You need to understand the "language" spoken (as it were) between DNA and RNA and you need to understand how RNAi uses DNA to silence gene sequencing. I am not going to unpack all that for you here, rest assured. I could but if you are struggling with the notion of "guidance" then you are going to have even more difficulty with basic dsRNA function.

The bottom line rubber meets the road facts in high level layman's terms are that you cannot (will not ever) achieve the concept of "evolution" absent RNAi control. That is a "form" of governance (aka, directional guidance, directional control, etc.). If you remove that control mechanism from the way RNAi works, then you will end up with all manner of monstrous species having a long, long, long history of running around the planet waaaaaaaaaay before Human ever arrives on the scene. We just don't see that in the fossil record. Not even remotely close. We we do see is a much more "controlled" Glide Path for the arrival of Human. That in and of itself requires a whole new thread.

Now, that is an ever so slightly lower level explanation than my first. If you want to go deeper let me know, but I will expect you to know and understand how RNA actually works. Not the pseudo-nonsense you were taught in High School, or the Scientific Blasphemy that you constantly see on pay for research NOVA type docudramas made explicitly for television "watchers" and not for the real scientific community.

You might be wondering by now what I believe the point of origin for "Human" happens to be. The answer is, I just don't know. I honestly don't know. I'm working on a theory, but I have no answers right now. Was it creation? Absolute, 100% yes. I do believe it was "creation" just not of the religious format.

Was it a 5th Life form not of this world? That's pretty much up for grabs at this point. I just don't know. What other viable alternatives are there. I'm open minded by not to junk science or some kind of pseudoscience that is framed for the sole purpose of maintaining stereotypes about so-called White Supremacy, or some kind of Mind Control Ritual handed down through the millennia through man made religious dogma.

I want real answers. I'm tired of BS on this particular subject. I want honesty, truthfulness and hard core evidence. I am an empiricist by natural inclination. A mathematician, an engineer, a physicist a private fund manager a researcher and most of a very curious individual seeking answers to some of life's toughest questions.

This is my last post on this forum until the next presidential election cycle. I only do this stuff for a while during an election, but I need to get back to my business. In this case, I won't be back until 2020, when President Hillary Clinton will be seeking re-election and running against Republican Presidential Nominee Paul Ryan, who is about to be turned into a Republican Rock Star with his decision to not support Donald Trump in 2016. Not that I think either party is worth a plug dime. Both parties have run their course in our nation's history and it is time for permanent change in the concept of how we go about executing on Self-Governance.

Anyway, until 2020.

 

If scientists knew it all then you might have an argument, but while scientists know more than most, they don't know everything. There are a nearly infinite possible environments throughout the universe, and just because we don't know which of these are capable of creating life does not mean it is not possible for life to arise naturally. And while chance and randomness are part of the process, there is nothing random about the natural laws that control them.

It is not the science you present that we disagree with, it is your interpretation of that science. Science says that humans are animals, so your statement that something could be part Human and part Animal is a non sequitur. When you understand this simple point, you will understand how PosterBoy's post addresses your underlying argument.

 

It is my understanding that different alleles can result in different observable phenotypic traits, such as different pigmentation. However, most genetic variations result in little or no observable variation, so if this is the basis for your scientific fact, it seems pretty weak to me. I will give you that over millions of years there could be substantial, we just can't go back that far to substantiate it.

 

I really like the fact that you are giving him some credit for this
theory that I agree is a significant step toward Theism.


http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...richard-dawkins-ph-d-aliens-seeded-earth.html
......
I am a Christian who believe that we Christians need to learn how to give our opponents more credit when they truly deserve it.

What Richard Dawkins Ph. D. states in this video....... is really quite brilliant... and in my opinion perhaps far closer to the truth on what scriptures say about the UFO phenomena than what is taught in many churches.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL7CCyuXAS4
Richard Dawkins: Aliens Seeded Earth?

 

The definition does not state the change in allele frequencies is limited to phenotypic traits (i.e., observable traits). Nice red herring though.

You should insert the word "accumulation" after the word "substantial" and then read your sentence out loud. See how it then makes sense?

Substantiate "it"? What is "it"? The definition of the noun "evolution" (a fact)? The theory of biological evolution (an explanation of facts)?

Analysis of the available relevant forensic evidence strongly supports the theory of biological evolution.

 

Evolution did not have modern man as an objective. Evolution has no such objective. Evolution hasn't stopped, either - so modern man is simply one of the gigantic number of life forms that has arisen so far.

So no, evolution does not argue against itself. You're simply trying to impose a goal on evolution that evolution most definitely does not have.

 

It's fun to think about, but it doesn't really answer much of anything as far as I can tell.

After all, if life on earth came from UFOs then we have to investigate how life started and became massively intelligent somewhere else (which is pretty darn hard to investigate) - providing little more than a convenient excuse for any failures in figuring out earthly abiogenesis.

I know abiogenesis to mankind seems unlikely, but the amount of time that has been spent on this process is absolutely inconceivably gigantic - billions of planets multiplied by billions of years. And, ignoring UFOs for a moment, we would be on a planet where life did start, not on a planet where life did NOT start.

 

You mss the obvious point that humans are animals.

 

You are right, poor choice of words and sentence structure, I didn't proof read it, shame on me.

- - - Updated - - -

Aren't you talking about the behavior of many humans?

 

We can genetically.

AA

 

Wrong.

Evolution is not and does not need to be concerned with how life began it instead answers how we got to the diversity of life as we lnow it now.

Evolution is fact and irrefutably proven.

You cannot show how the science behind evolution has been fabricated and distorted because that specific claim of yours is a lie.

Evolution has in fact been demonstrated many times over

 

Good post and all true. Guess the next attempted hedge should be that while evolution has been conclusively proven in other animals it hasn't been demonstrated in real time in humans.

 

Down in flames goes that theory from the word go.
ALL planets started off as dead chunks of rock floating around in space.

 

True, so we are right back to theory aren't we.