"The origin of species"

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TerryDon79

The difference is I don't pretend mine is nothing other than a faith

Based on a great deal of scientific evidence that proves design.

Scientific evidence? Oh, you mean shapes? Yeah, THATS proof lol.

As for science having no proof? Go read a book.

I have and the biggest problem starts at their begginings

A big ban from nothing produced

or

The laws of gravity produced

or the steady state produced

or whatever else happens to cross a madmans mind produced


So far just a religion of belief in nothing, evolution, the mad mans faith

a reply to: wisvol

It seems you are stuck on "which came first, the chicken or the egg". While the logical answer is there was one day an egg which contained a chicken that was to genetically different that it could not interbreed with the vast majority of the species which preceded it.

a reply to: GreenGunther

That is scientifically false...
because only a mature hen has the material required to construct the egg shell itself...
So the chicken came before the egg and not only was the Hen a prerequisite so was a Rooster... And neither of them could come before the egg... period...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: GreenGunther

That is scientifically false...
because only a mature hen has the material required to construct the egg shell itself...
So the chicken came before the egg and not only was the Hen a prerequisite so was a Rooster... And neither of them could come before the egg... period...

Welcome back troll.
You were missed.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Hi, thanks for joining the discussion, and for being polite.

I think the answer is in DNA. All life on earth right now is related in DNA. Even grass is related to us and as we look at chimps and work our way back the one fundamental connection is DNA.

DNA is a specific acid, named after its lack of oxyribose, contrasting it with RNA which was found shortly before.

Acids are not magic, they're liquids (at room temp & pressure, chem geeks) that happen to have ionized hydrogen. That's it, it's a chemical, not the blood of all things living or anything else than acid.

The less likely life looks to be similar the less DNA is related, but there is always a relationship. This basically suggested all life has a common past of some kind.

Actually, slicing a brick, a potato, a giraffe and one of your pubes thin enough will show you this:

Small enough, all stuff is coal and water. Bigger in specific location, everything but the brick has a specific acid, and the way it's ordered (genomic sequence of potato, giraffe and man) amazingly enough shows more similarity between the potato and us than the giraffe and us. You can do this in a high school lab if you find a giraffe, though it probably works with household pets.

If we go back 5 million years we can say chimps and humans were the same species, if we go back 300 million years we might be able to say a grape vine and humans were the same species.

So because acid is magic, if we go back 896400 million years bricks and vines were also the same species?
See, I'm glad you believe this mostly because I'm smiling right now but how can anyone say this is science, when science is about measuring experiments you design, and not just repeating stuff you didn't even make up yourself?

I'm all with you on "all life is one", I can feel connected to my own garden, not even just the plants but even the ground, but that doesn't mean they're my relatives, except in the sense that great uncle may be buried not too far and is part of it all, what I say is that no matter how long vines make slightly different vines and people make slightly different people, vines aren't people's offspring or parent in a sexual reproductive sense.

And neither are monkeys, even if they sometimes juggle. A lot of things look like other things without turning into them over long periods of time. Similarity does not imply common ancestry.

A good way to see whether I'm full of # of holding a tiny bit of the veil up for you now is this:

imagine the first man ever, exactly the number of centuries school told you. The very first primate from the species homo-inis.
Did he breed with another species?
Thing is breeding with monkeys doesn't work, that's how species are defined.
A species is the ensemble of individuals who can breed fertile offspring.

Or maybe the very first man was in fact an entire tribe of monkeys who slowly andante over time became an entire tribe of people, which is even more retarded because each of the umpteen required mutations only apply to one embryo at a time, and only one mutation makes the difference between fertility and infertility?

a reply to: GreenGunther

Thanks again.

It seems you are stuck on "which came first, the chicken or the egg". While the logical answer is there was one day an egg which contained a chicken that was to genetically different that it could not interbreed with the vast majority of the species which preceded it.

I seem stuck to you, fair enough. The thing is in your example the chicken is either the first chicken ever or it isn't, and if it is, the entire species which preceded it is unable to interbreed with it because they are according to your example, not chickens.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Hello personal attacker I see you are still here to falsely accuse me and continue to harass me while offering nothing of substance...
No surprise there...incidentally you may be living proof of evolution the chicken brain you possess is rather fascinating...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

Hello personal attacker I see you are still here to falsely accuse me and continue to harass me while offering nothing of substance...
No surprise there...incidentally you may be living proof of evolution the chicken brain you possess is rather fascinating...

So you first sentence only applies for me?

Got it.

a reply to: wisvol

That is correct, my example is a little direct. There will the other members of the species that will still be able to interbreed with one that has a mutation that sets it apart from the vast majority of the species, and together they will breed their own little group of new species. The genetic deviations and mutations will happen over a long period of time, but the theory remains the same. I think great example of this is reptiles. Reptiles preceded birds, but it's clear that feathers came from reptilian scales.

The process will be slow, but eventually you will have chickens from whatever came before chickens.

Another great example are domestic pigs. Pigs weren't always cute, pink, bacon producing machines. The first pigs that were domesticated were in China 10000 years ago. As they became domesticated they lost their wild pig hair, lost their tusks etc.
But let a domesticated pig free into they wild and they become feral really quickly. If I remember correctly they regrow tusks in about the 3 weeks, the spickey fur returns etc. This is due to epigenetics.

www.reddit.com...

The process of domestication has not been going on long enough to allow these pigs to be fully evolved domestic pigs. They are still able to revert really quickly due to genes that can be altered by environment.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I think the answer is in DNA.

Actually you're right...

DNA not only proves that Darwin was wrong, but it also shows that evolution is quite literally impossible.

The fraudulent concept of 'junk DNA' confirms that Darwinism is in fact a con, a ruse, and one of the greatest scientific hoaxes ever created.

So if “junk DNA” is really active and functional DNA, how come scientists have been so wrong and did not know this before? The reason is the Darwin Conspiracy. The Darwin Conspiracy fabricated the phony “junk DNA” idea in order to hide the fact that human DNA is very different from ape DNA. Atheists desperately need 98% of human DNA to be junk or else “ape to human evolution” gets demolished for reasons we will explain below.

These two discoveries proved “ape to human evolution” was impossible because the DNA of apes and humans are so different that the discrepancies could not be accounted for by evolution. The DNA differences contradicted “ape to human evolution.” This means that as early as the 1960's, DNA tests proved Darwin was wrong.

In 1972, the Darwin Conspiracy temporarily saved “ape to human evolution” theory from extinction by fabricating the phony concept of “junk DNA.” Faced with the fact that 98% of ape DNA is vastly different from human DNA, the Darwin Conspiracy very cleverly decided to label that 98% of the DNA as “junk DNA” and therefore the ape to human DNA differences had no relevance. The Darwin Conspiracy is insidious and very clever and always mixes truth with their lies so that their lies are more believable.

Aren't the atheists clever? By creating the baloney about “junk DNA,” the Darwin Conspiracy was able to successfully neutralize the fact that 98% of ape and human DNA are not similar and this kept the creationists from using those DNA differences as ammunition to attack “ape to human evolution.” So the next time any Darwinian tells you “the genetic matter of apes and humans are 99% identical,” you know this is a Darwin Conspiracy lie.

THE SCIENCE OF GENETICS EXPOSES THE "99% IDENTICAL" CLAIM IS A LIE

“For years Darwinists touted “junk DNA” as not just any evidence but powerful, practically irrefutable evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis. ID proponents disagreed and argued that the evidence would ultimately demonstrate function. Not only did both hypotheses make testable predictions, the Darwinist prediction turned out to be false and the ID prediction turned out to be confirmed.”

The ID position has now been largely vindicated and the Darwinist position debunked.

www.uncommondescent.com...

That is why Darwinians concocted the phoney concept of “junk DNA.” By claiming that human and ape DNA is “98% junk DNA,” they could ignore as much as 98% of the DNA that did not match up by claiming it did not count because it was junk. The science of genetics has recently made major discoveries that refute “ape to human evolution” and prove Darwin was wrong – because of this, atheists are on the warpath and there is currently a huge battle being fought over whether there really is “junk DNA.”

For decades, atheists have claimed that the genetic matter of apes and humans are 99% identical. But here is the secret – when atheists make the “99% identical” claim, they are only referring to "encoding DNA" which is a mere 2% of human DNA – they are not including the other 98% because they have labeled that as “junk DNA.” If you include “junk DNA,” then ape and human DNA are only 30% similar or identical.

The huge problem atheists are faced with is the fact that most parts of human “junk DNA” is not at all similar to ape “junk DNA.” Therefore, if “junk DNA” has function, then evolution theory is refuted because it simply cannot explain the vast differences between ape and human “junk DNA.” The differences are so great that it is impossible for humans to have evolved from apes, just as it is impossible to make a Ferrari from the parts of a Volkswagen.

DNA tests prove Darwin Was Wrong

...Jonathan Wells exposes their claim as an anti-scientific myth that ignores the evidence, relies on illegitimate theological speculations, and impedes biomedical research. In The Myth of Junk DNA, biologist Jonathan Wells exposes their claim as an anti-scientific myth that ignores the evidence, relies on illegitimate theological speculations, and impedes biomedical research.

Far from consisting mainly of junk, the genome is increasingly revealing itself to be a multidimensional, integrated system in which non-protein-coding DNA performs a wide variety of essential biological functions. If anything, the genome actually provides evidence for intelligent design, not against it. After reading this book, your view of the genome—and of the people who claim to represent science while they misrepresent the evidence—will never be the same again.

The Myth of Junk DNA

a reply to: GreenGunther

How is that evolution?
the information is predisposed only lying dormant in them because thier lifestyle is relaxed...
But reintroduce them into a stressful enviroment and thier TESTOSTERONE levels rise and that is what triggers the physical change...
That's like saying when a body builder does steroids that too is evidence of evolution...

a reply to: GreenGunther


All right man, but please pay attention to the concept that what's good for pigs may also be good for cows for me, and there we go:

Reptiles preceded birds, but it's clear that feathers came from reptilian scales

Birds do look like reptiles a little bit yea. Feathers look more like hair if you watch a feather closely it's like a one lined hairbrush. But since t-rex's grand (grand?)kids are chickens to you, sure it's also "clear that feathers came from reptilian scales", pray tell: is that your own conclusion or someone's textbook repeated here because that does sound awfully familiar.

The process will be slow, but eventually you will have chickens from whatever came before chickens.

I respect your sacred right to believe anything you want, but do you really believe this from thinking, or are you repeating something that actually is so retarded and hidden in plain sight that it just seems weird without it?

But let a domesticated pig free into they wild and they become feral really quickly. If I remember correctly they regrow tusks in about the 3 weeks, the spickey fur returns etc. This is due to epigenetics.

So this means that wild boar and pink piggies are indeed the same species, which lizards and birds aren't, and since wilderness released chicken don't grow scales, maybe epigenetics is a way that in appropriate circumstance people grow different sets of teeth, hair, bodyfat, muscle even hair colour because all living beings do this yet no living being hops species ever, not even once?
A sun tan is epigenetics.
Cats still don't make dogs.

a reply to: wisvol

The process will be slow, but eventually you will have chickens from whatever came before chickens.

I respect your sacred right to believe anything you want, but do you really believe this from thinking, or are you repeating something that actually is so retarded and hidden in plain sight that it just seems weird without it?

Unless you meant eggs, then yea.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

It's relevant because these changes can become permanent depending on environment. It also ties in with evolution since evolution is dependent on environment. Domesticate these pigs for long enough and they will not be able to produce raised testosterone levels in a stressful environment and they will always be cute and pink. Environment is your main factor in evolution, but there are other factors as well. Your body builder example is not applicable as the body builder's body does not produce steroids naturally, its artificial.

a reply to: wisvol

Some dinosaur fossils with feathers for you:

Quora.com samples of dinos with feathers

a reply to: GreenGunther

I'll say that the bodybuilder taking steroids is not a prime example for the reason you stated...
However I will instead say that's like saying a female with high levels of testosterone that grows a moustache naturally is evidence of evolution.
It's not...
its a side effect of the elevated levels of testosterone produced in the body...

a reply to: wisvol

dude are you seriously looking for a crocoduck or some kind of halfbreed of every species and family that we have now? there is change and variation in species from generation to generation. thats evolution. there is no better way of explaining the diversity of life. there is no other option besides the laughable claim that some god when, poof, penguins, poof polar bears, poof giraffes. no one can know the origins of life, we can only speculate and choose to believe the best explanation. we dont have to prove where life came from only reject supernatural claims and flawed theories.

a reply to: wisvol

This is definitely from thinking Ever wonder why giraffes have such long necks? Ever wonder why elephants have trunks? I fear you have not seen enough examples of evolution to thoroughly comprehend.

I can completely understand why the Galapagos islands were Darwin's eureka moment. He just saw finches, but each group were adapted to take advantage of their environment. I can give you thousands of examples of evolution that show how well creatures adapted to take advantage of their environment, but I don't have time for that.

I suggest start with David Attenborough's 'Life' if you wish to see examples of these adaptations, If you are interested in the theory of evolution specifically have a look at his 'Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life' documentary. He's great with explaining things in lamen's terms. I've just always enjoyed nature so I have had a lot of exposure t nature documentaries and their great examples of adaptation to survive ie. evolution.

If I have offended anyone with my posts please explain why, but for now I'm done talking about this. Go find information and be enlightened.

a reply to: vjr1113

A platypus is natures example of a crocoduck

a reply to: vjr1113

Dude! A crocoduck?

poof, penguins, poof polar bears, poof giraffes

I've got tears in laughing that hard.