The current idea for abiogenesis is that natural forces selected for the complex organics we see that make up life as we know it.
Ignoring the snark. How do you define a 'new!' species? Reproductive isolation? How do you get the major changes in the genome? It cannot be observed. There is no mechanism that can alter it in the ways that ucd predicts. I will tire of responding, if all you have is snarky comebacks. How does 'similarity' prove anything? All matter is similar, made up of atomic particles. How does that provide evidence for ucd? ..yawn.. Origin of Species? Origin of man? Ucd claims that all species have their ORIGIN in a transitional or different species. Save the indignation, and try to follow the discussion without getting triggered. .yawn.. perhaps i will get bored very quickly, attempting rational discussion with you... Ad hom aside, you merely DECLARE and ASSUME descendancy. You BELIEVE this is what happened, but you have NO EVIDENCE that it can, or did. Can you fuse 2 pair of chromosomes from a human and produce an ape, with completely different genes, chromosomal makeup, and architecture? No. If they were the same, genetically, there might be some credence for this chromosome fusion theory. Merely counting chromosome pairs does not make an ape into a man, or vice versa. A sable antelope has 23 chromosome pairs.. did it come from the ape, too? A potato has 24 pairs. Did man descend from a potato? ..and i don't mean the potato headed posters on this forum, who blindly follow their beliefs, claiming 'Science!', but are clueless about scientific methodology.
It does make one a creationist. You believe God created life. But if I'm wrong, can you please give a detailed explaination as to why you are not a creationist? Other than your refusal to have the lable placed upon you.
Provide evidence for this: http://politicalforum.com/index.php...volution-redux.504291/page-23#post-1067744546 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ism-is-abstract.425438/page-3#post-1065392370 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...volution-redux.504291/page-21#post-1067674356 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...g-christianity.446908/page-30#post-1066931364
And I asked everyone of your kind to provide evidence for claims such as these: http://politicalforum.com/index.php...volution-redux.504291/page-23#post-1067744546 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ism-is-abstract.425438/page-3#post-1065392370 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...volution-redux.504291/page-21#post-1067674356 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...g-christianity.446908/page-30#post-1066931364
That is Christianity's crux as well. This proves that your kind are complete hypocrites. : http://politicalforum.com/index.php...volution-redux.504291/page-23#post-1067744546 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ism-is-abstract.425438/page-3#post-1065392370 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...volution-redux.504291/page-21#post-1067674356 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...g-christianity.446908/page-30#post-1066931364
Let's see, you provided no evidence whatsoever to provide evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. Not that I'd expect you to do that since there is no such evidence. At least you haven't been able to produce anything. By the way, I'm not a Creationist. But I understand that you have no recourse but to act childish and use name calling since you're incapable of producing any evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. After all I've crushed your religious belief in evolution and you're upset and crying and all that. Need a tissue?[/QUOTE] I know you will one day
To be fair, you yourself follow something that lacks scientifically-based certainty. You don't need to insult the posters (maybe at least not all?) for believing in evolution if you yourself are just the same.
? I insulted ALL the posters? With my potato head crack? Are you implying that some of thr posters here really do believe they descended from a potato? They have an alter set up in their mom's basement with a real mr. Potato head.. hat, big lips, and all. ..maybe even a MRS Potato head, for the true Believers. Every day, they have pangs of guilt, when they have to ask, "You want fries, with that?" But there is no justification for my mashing of potato ancestry worship.. any more than those who revere apes or chimps as their ancestors, or at least their kin. No, when the chips are down, spuditry is a low blow.. tubers need love, too, and all the tater tots. Besides, i can see they have a-peel for those floundering in the deep fryer of human angst.. maybe spud worship will peel away the mysteries of life. I think.. therefore i yam... Sorry about that.. ..not taking much seriously, this morning..
There was no snark. I asked you a question: Have you bothered to look this up yourself? Then the follow up question will be: Do you understand that the only correct answers you get to your questions here will be the conclusions of the scientific community, not the opinions of message board posters, and that you actually can look up the answers to your questions yourself? Please don't ignore my questions and then answer with a question.
Why invent stuff i didn't say? I'll try this again: Evolutionary theory explains thw diversity of species, not the origin of the first species. The fact that you don't understand this, despite school children understanding this, should cause you to doubt your own education and reasoning, if you are a rational person. An irrational person would delude himself into thinking his own lack of understanding is because everyone else is wrong. Exactly as you are doing.
Actually I meant that the behaviour of some posters maybe warrented your insult. Though I'm not sure as I haven't read through the entire thread in a very long time. If not for your ideological views, the post you made actually would have been very funny. The puns work especially well.
Well, it is comforting to know that i am still an enemy of progressive Indoctrination, and that nullifies my humanity, in the eyes of progressives. I could be funny.. if i was a part of Progresso groupthink! What do you have to do, to be accepted in the progressive groupthink clique? Just toe the line with every mandated belief? Nod like a bobblehead on every left wing issue? ..i guess I'm not that desperate for approval, and the nagging reality of truth is too conflicting.
Evolution is more of a scientific issue. I don't think it has anything to do with progressivism. Plus, the conservative community has the same issues when it comes to "groupthink". It's just expressed in a different (often more mature) manner. Personally, I don't associate with any group. Political or otherwise. The rest of humanity is far too different from myself ideologically speaking.
we had 24 pair of chromosomes, two pair have fused-that requires evolution ,will that produce an ape you ask? no because we still are apes! seriously instead of asking silly questions a return to high school and a basic biology class would help you...or maybe not unless you're just here to troll and have no intention of an honest debate which I suspect is the case...as well as woefully under-educated in basic biology...
IMO, Prunepicker is correct about TOE being flawed and unsuitable for explaining the origins of widely diverse creatures. In the 1970’s archeologists discovered modern-type stone tools at Hueyatlaco, (near Puebla), Mexico. A team of geologists headed by Virginia Steen-McIntyre was called in to date the site. Various material samples were sent to labs for dating. Altogether four different types of dating methods registered an age of 250,000 years. However, authorities rejected such factual results because of conflict with the established understanding that no modern-type humans could have existed that far back in time. Professional journals refused to publish the facts; thereafter Steen-McIntyre’s career was ruined since no one would hire her to do that type of work. In the 1940’s geologists & archeologists found evidence of modern-type flowering plants & insects in salty strata beneath 550-million year old Cambrian layers in an area that is now part of Pakistan. Nay-sayers suggested that overthrust could account for younger materials lying beneath older layers, but further site examination eliminated that scenario. In the 1990’s, surveys by petrogeologists who were not aware of such circumstances also confirmed the sequential legitimacy of the site datings. Accusations that Creationism is behind reports of such anomalies are not always warranted. Now we know that the significance of a supposed early hominid “Lucy” was a fudging, an exaggeration well beyond her chimp-like developmental level, and the depicted progressive stages of horse evolution is an oversimplification that overlooks some incongruent examples. Speaking of “incongruent examples,” repeated findings of advanced characteristics in hominid fossils in strata underlying younger layers containing less advanced hominid creatures have perplexed scientists in the field. What we have here are hints of a dynamic across multiple fields of inquiry, including megalithic wonders (The Pyramid [Giza, Egypt], Sacsayhaumann Walls & Tiahuanaco [Peru]), bigfoot, giants, UFOs, remote viewing, poltergeists, walking on water, and liftoff of Enoch. Wallace, a cofounder of TOE with Darwin, became aware that something might be missing. Because of the mysterious “jumps” in evolution that seem to coincide with drastic cataclysmic changes, my suspicion is that some level of otherwise obscure guiding intelligence (or controlling program) is intervening, which may be accompanied by and enhanced by effects of unusual patterns of energy. A human consists of matter, mind, and consciousness (spirit), but we are mired in an insistence on the absolutes of objective physical reality. Because of quantum mechanics, our reality is a probability resolution that determines what exists from one microsecond to the next and is almost always comfortably logical, consistent, and reliable. However, some of the rules that govern the source of physical reality (quarks, electromagnetism, gravity, etc.) are not operative in physical reality, hence the label subjective. Yet we are so habituated and conditioned towards the way objective physical reality works that we let it keep us thinking in a rut and thoroughly buffaloed. Much of the “reality code” was figured out in the 1920’s and 1930’s, and by 1947 secret weaponry using scalar energy (faster than light) was used to shoot down alien spacecraft, providing opportunities for development using reverse engineering. Since then, black projects have been gorging on top secret budgets and have given a privileged segment of the population unlimited power and discretion, all part of an establishment that includes the corprocrats and bankers of economic stranglehold who can control cycles of boom, bust, and war for profit. As George Carlon explained, “They own you.” They can be opposed by the only remaining resources at our disposal: The mind and the source of reality.
First of all, calling them "factual" assumes something that must be proven, and was not. Furthermore, if you get a result that contradicts literally tens of thousands of other tests, then it makes sense to reject that result anf consider it as altered by some unknown phenomenon. What NO rational person would do is look at one anomolous result and think that undermines all of the mountains of other evidence. Yet you just did exactly that .
Why introduce a new, magical idea? The known mechanisms of evolution can explain that . Adding this magical cliam is not necessary or rational.
You do understand that "perplexed" means, "I don't know"...right? Can you name abiut one million of these examples? Because there are millions of examples of all of these lining up just exactly as we would expect, and all agree with each other. You need far more than "a few" examples to merit any real worry that accepted theories are not correct, which is why scientists are not worried by this.
The jumps in evolution are too severe to be so casually whitewashed away. Try telling a nuclear physicist that virtual particles are too magical for serious consideration.
Says who? You? Could you please direct me to the mountain of science you have published and others who agree with this and draw this conclusion from their studies have published? because the scientific community seems to have a couple of ways to explain this that don't require adding a layer of magical nonsense, from what I have read. But you're about to show us all otherwise..... can't wait...
