There's the Theory of Evolution and the Interpretation of Evolution

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

Evolution says life began as only one, simple-celled, microbial organism. And from that one life, every other life form evolved, right?

Not really...

Its more like, life began as simple organisms
… and expanded from there...

Not necessarily just one single "kind" of organism

It doesn't change the basic point.

Life began with simple-celled organisms, which 'evolved' into all other life forms.

Evolution claims that since all life shares genetic properties, they originally must have been only one, same, single species.

Humans and modern apes share 99% DNA, which proves, beyond a doubt, each species is uniquely distinct, and different, from any other species.

Similar DNA is the foundation of evolution theory. And it fails, miserably.

So, evolution theory fails.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

why do we teach our children of a big fat man in a read suit comes rippin down our chimney to put presents under a decorated tree

Its fantasy... so our children can stay that way for a bit

before the world introduces them to reality in a few years

The evolution fantasy hasn't died yet, unfortunately.

It's just the same as if Santa was still believed, by adults.

Painful to see it still go on, indeed.

a reply to: turbonium1

So you rely on all your science education from I am assuming long past primary school education ? Was this a publicly funded school?

Sorry to telly neighbor, but whatever you remember from your first education, is not what evolution is.

As for humans and "ape like ancestors" Sure, if you go back enough steps. However you still are confusing "how life began" with how life changes. You are trying to divert the discussion from what you screwed up.

So lets clear you up.

Hominids (of which only Homo sapiens remains) diverged from the ancestors of modern chimps millions of years ago (currently assumed to be 7 million years). In the time between that and today, we have had a number of different Hominins. These include most recently two we interbreed with Homo neanderthalensis and the Denisovians (yet to be assigned a species name in latin).

So lets go back to the bit you are avoiding. How life began is not part of the evolutionary theory. Before you try "what about the first creature" on the tree of life? That "common ancestor" is not thought to be the first life either. The last common universal ancestor has never been stated to be the first life. It is just the COMMON ancestor that theoretically existed for the current life. Extinction events and all that jazz.

As for the evidence i have. Go to any number of posts I've made here. Look for hyper links. I warn you however it is not primary school level stuff.

a reply to: turbonium1

We also teach children (erroniously) that say electrons are particles (they are also waves, depending on how you look at them) and light is in the form of waves (they are in the form of particles again depending on how you look at them. Quantum mechanics is fun

If you had any education in well education. You would understand that you teach things in such a way, that your audience as a whole can understand it. SO your so called propaganda, was probably rather old and outdated, but also such that the lowest common denominator could get it. Clearly you were under that level of understanding and still are.

As for "propoganda" , no neighbour its science. Propoganda would be teaching a single religion in schools as opposed to all of them. Science is verifiable by facts, Religion is not. QED

a reply to: turbonium1

Cite your sources neighbour.

What 99% similarity (here is a citationfor you) shows that we are closely realatedbananas. What this means is the fact we share DNA and are similar, we probably you know evolved.

a reply to: turbonium1

You are making a claim (a fantastical one) that evolution is a fantasy. Prove it. See the rules of these things basically mean that you need to prove it. You made the claim. You have invoked Hitchen's Razor

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: turbonium1

Cite your sources neighbour.

What 99% similarity (here is a citationfor you) shows that we are closely realatedbananas. What this means is the fact we share DNA and are similar, we probably you know evolved.

I seem to believe not all of us "evolved"

Present company excepted perhaps?

a reply to: Akragon

There is always the option that some of our fellow posters did not inherit some of the mutations for brain development, others of us did? There seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance, when they assume the poster they vaguely remember from "elementary school" was the total story .... you know as opposed to the Mandela effect of "my memory sucks so I will make up that things have changed" level of self delusion.

originally posted by: Noinden
So you rely on all your science education from I am assuming long past primary school education ? Was this a publicly funded school?

Sorry to telly neighbor, but whatever you remember from your first education, is not what evolution is.

Whether or not 'what evolution is', to you, or anyone else, is irrelevant. All that matters is - this is what WE WERE TAUGHT ABOUT EVOLUTION. Every kid in my class, and every other class, year after year, was taught the very same thing, and saw the very same 'evolutionary charts' I did.

It's very convenient for you to say 'this is not what evolution is', after countless kids, including myself, were TAUGHT that this was evolution. I'm sure there are thousands of others who were taught the same as I was, and saw the same sort of 'evolutionary charts' on their classroom walls.

You also say right below it's part of 'evolution'....

originally posted by: Noinden
As for humans and "ape like ancestors" Sure, if you go back enough steps.

I've told you this was on my 2nd grade 'evolutionary chart', which you just said 'wasn't what evolution is'......

Which story do you want to stick with?

originally posted by: Noinden
However you still are confusing "how life began" with how life changes. You are trying to divert the discussion from what you screwed up.

Sorry, but it's not something you can dismiss.

If a theory launches from a well-established, well proven matter....then it's certainly acceptable to proceed afterwards, no problem.

But if a theory starts from a point, which is not established, not proven, to begin with, - there's no excusing it, or jumping past it, or ignoring it, or saying it's not relevant to know it. As if they would know if it's relevant or not, when they don't have a clue about it!!

Evolution doesn't work, as it is, so we'll go from there...

originally posted by: Noinden
Hominids (of which only Homo sapiens remains) diverged from the ancestors of modern chimps millions of years ago (currently assumed to be 7 million years). In the time between that and today, we have had a number of different Hominins. These include most recently two we interbreed with Homo neanderthalensis and the Denisovians (yet to be assigned a species name in latin).

As for the evidence i have. Go to any number of posts I've made here. Look for hyper links. I warn you however it is not primary school level stuff.

There is not a shred of valid evidence for it, and saying there is, over and over again, will not change the facts.

Every species, whether extinct, or living, is one, single, separate species - from the very first generation, to the very last generation. This is supported with over 10,000 years of identical species on Earth.

What do the millions of species on Earth prove, after 10,000 years? That a species on Earth does NOT change, at all...let alone change into a completely different species!

The 'millions of years' argument doesn't work. A 10,000 year period is certainly enough time to have an indication of a species changing to another, different, species....

No more talk about changes which are simply inherent traits, within the species, itself. Environment can trigger a change inherent to a species, which was previously latent, until triggered. This is not evolution, it is adaptation.

Nothing confirms whether fossils were found, or where they found them, or who found them, or what they assumed the fossils were, because all they seem to find are a few little fragments. The other 95% not found, is always 'represented', and 'sketched'.

That's how most of your 'extinct species' are commonly presented to the world - artistic impressions, with cartoon-like anatomies, of sheer fantasy.


One of the chimp species became extinct, the other still exists today. That's how it is - a species dies off, another species lives on.

Any idiot can claim something will happen, when it takes 'X million years'!

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: turbonium1

You are making a claim (a fantastical one) that evolution is a fantasy. Prove it. See the rules of these things basically mean that you need to prove it. You made the claim. You have invoked Hitchen's Razor

Nice try.

The original claim is your claim, of Evolution theory, and that claim is based on fantasy.

Claiming humans evolved from primates, is a fantasy. If you seriously believe that your ancestors were half-wit primates, because of some fossils with similar DNA, and protein, which has nothing to do with common ancestry of a species....it suggests you have another agenda, which is to continually support such nonsense.



Evolution is meant to demean humans, and all life on Earth. It is part of their greater agenda.

But that's a whole other issue.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: turbonium1

You are making a claim (a fantastical one) that evolution is a fantasy. Prove it. See the rules of these things basically mean that you need to prove it. You made the claim. You have invoked Hitchen's Razor

Nice try.

The original claim is your claim, of Evolution theory, and that claim is based on fantasy.

Claiming humans evolved from primates, is a fantasy. If you seriously believe that your ancestors were half-wit primates, because of some fossils with similar DNA, and protein, which has nothing to do with common ancestry of a species....it suggests you have another agenda, which is to continually support such nonsense.



Evolution is meant to demean humans, and all life on Earth. It is part of their greater agenda.

But that's a whole other issue.

(Hysterical laughter)
I bow to your trolling abilities.

a reply to: turbonium1

Evolution is meant to demean humans,

As opposed to "poof" we're here... I suppose for those without an education that would be demeaning

Personally I find it intellectually insulting...

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

Evolution is meant to demean humans,

As opposed to "poof" we're here... I suppose for those without an education that would be demeaning

Personally I find it intellectually insulting...

It is intellectually insulting to believe random primordial soups go "poof", life begins!

Insult our intelligence that we were once a bunch of stupid apes, too.

Intelligence is knowing that life was not created by random soups, and that humans were never apes, or anything else. Seeing 10,000 years of human history proves that. It's insulting to believe in something that has no evidence to support it, but much more insulting to believe in something so grotesque, so absurd, as this.

a reply to: turbonium1

Over a period of millions of years its very easy to picture...

Though im sure you believe the earth is only 6k years old too

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

Over a period of millions of years its very easy to picture...

Though im sure you believe the earth is only 6k years old too

I don't care if it's a trillion years period, it doesn't make it any better.


I'm not interested in ridiculous theories on how life began with a random pile of lifeless crap, which somehow morphed into every life form on Earth, because there's no other possible explanation for it!

Simply the fact that life cannot be created, in ANY form, with our entire knowledge of biology, and chemistry, and physics, and all the rest of it - today, or any time in the foreseeable future - suggests to me that life is far more complex than mixing random piles of lifeless slop, and waiting a few million years to hatch something out of it, called 'life'.

Does this make sense to you?




Only a moron, or arrogant fools, could still believe that life is simply created from random soups, while we cannot even create one life form INTENTIONALLY, after endless combinations, and processes, in the futile attempt to create just ONE living organism!!


Therefore, we must conclude that a highly advanced Intelligence MUST be involved, in the creation of millions of complex life forms. An intelligence far beyond our own. That's pretty obvious, since we cannot begin to know how to create ANY form of life.

It makes no sense to suggest 'Since we, the greatest scientists on Earth, with the most advanced technologies ever known, with more knowledge than any other human before us, cannot create life....then it must be a random mixing of unknown, and perhaps known, ingredients. Plus a few million years of time, to cook it to perfection!'

This must be one of the most idiotic, ridiculous arguments, in all human history. And it still goes on, which is pathetic.


Science deals in the physical world. While science has begun to look into what cannot be accounted for in the physical world, or, at least what we know of it......conventional science has scorned, and mocked, those who have the courage to consider more may exist, beyond the physical. As if it's better for science to keep on looking into how life was hatched in a random chemical soup, rather than consider other, non-physical explanations for it.

Unfortunately, there is an underlying agenda behind this. And that's why it goes on, to this day.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LABTECH767

Do you have any evidence to support your theory? Or did you just make it up?

You mean like Darwin made up his theory that is now spouted as the gospel truth?????

Personally, I'm a big proponent of The Theory of Adaption.

originally posted by: pointessa

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LABTECH767

Do you have any evidence to support your theory? Or did you just make it up?

You mean like Darwin made up his theory that is now spouted as the gospel truth?????

Personally, I'm a big proponent of The Theory of Adaption.

No such thing. Sorry evolution's been proved. It's not just spouted as gospel, it's backed by hard evidence.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Only a moron, or arrogant fools, could still believe that life is simply created from random soups, while we cannot even create one life form INTENTIONALLY, after endless combinations, and processes, in the futile attempt to create just ONE living organism!!

The arrogance is in denying science. Humans haven't created stars yet either, that doesn't mean stars can't form naturally.

Therefore, we must conclude that a highly advanced Intelligence MUST be involved, in the creation of millions of complex life forms. An intelligence far beyond our own. That's pretty obvious, since we cannot begin to know how to create ANY form of life.

So you make a knowledge claim by appealing to ignorance. Basically you are saying, "We don't know everything, therefor my complete guess is true." That's not how it works, bud. If that's your conclusion then you need evidence, tests and results. You can't just say your explanation is true just because they haven't fully proved the "opposing" viewpoint.

It makes no sense to suggest 'Since we, the greatest scientists on Earth, with the most advanced technologies ever known, with more knowledge than any other human before us, cannot create life....then it must be a random mixing of unknown, and perhaps known, ingredients. Plus a few million years of time, to cook it to perfection!'

So you think they just made it up? Science hasn't reached its pinnacle yet, we have a long way to go as far as learning everything about the universe. Science 1000 years from now will make our knowledge today look like chicken scratch. We have only been a modern advanced scientific society for a couple hundred years at best. Pretending they should know everything by now is silly.

www.talkorigins.org...

They didn't just make it up, there is tons of work done on the topic.

As if it's better for science to keep on looking into how life was hatched in a random chemical soup, rather than consider other, non-physical explanations for it.

The goal of science is to figure it out, not take guesses and claim they are absolute truth. They follow evidence, regardless of how butthurt religious people get over the findings. The origin of life is still not known. No reason to get upset just because it doesn't agree with your personal faith. That is extreme arrogance.

Besides, we all know that if Abiogensis and RNA World get completely proved tomorrow, creationists will move the goalposts to whatever happened prior or flat out deny it like with evolution. Evidence and research simply doesn't matter to many of them, so why even bring up research?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Noinden

You’re asking an awful lot from someone who doesn’t use the standard definitions of what evolution actually is and instead ilutilizes YEC definitions for all aspects. Particularly the old tripe of “that’s not evolution, that’s just adaptation” it’s an unwinable argument because the discussion isn’t approached from an open minded position. Turbo Nuuk has all the answers as far as they’re concerned and we’re just jumping through his backwards hoops.

The evolution claim is that all species on Earth, were all a random brew of garbage once, which came to life, and every life came from it, afterwards.

Why we accept this claim is beyond me.

It is a soul, we are given

That’s not at all what is stated in the Modern Ecolutionary Synthesis. That’s the evolutionary theory that eeg been operating under since 1948 so that you know what is being discussed. What you reference above is the hypothesis of Abiogenesis. How life began isn’t a part of evolutionary theory. No matter how many time your want to repeat a lie, it doesn’t make it true. All it does is show how little you actually understand about a subject that is clearly above your ability to understand the basics of let alone the finer points.

That is correct, they do not speak about how life first began on Earth.

Right, because that’s not what Anthropologists or Evolutionary Biologists study. Evolution is how organisms change over time. Not some fictitious strawman argument cobbled together from incredulity and confirmation biases. Nine if that stops people who think the earth is flat and less than 10 KA from inserting hypothesis like Abiogenesis or Panspermia 😁into every possible discussion on evolutionary theory.

Evolution says life began as only one, simple-celled, microbial organism. And from that one life, every other life form evolved, right?

Not quite. But then I shouldn’t expect a post doctoral understanding of the material when you’ve been pretty clear
that your entire understanding of the MES is based on an oversimplified and dumbed down version to make it easier for 2nd graders to understand the basic concepts of evolution and the mechanisms that shape and drive evolution.

To be more precise, yes, the first life on Earth was simple archaea. That does not however equate with or mean that all life as we currently know it today, evolved from it has a direct lineage to the aforementioned archaea. Much like within our own genus, Homo, not every species, like H. Antecessor for example. Many organisms evolve and then go nowhere aside from being an evolutionary dead end. There could have been innumerable simple organisms going as far back as the RNA world hypothesis. We are just the descendants of the organisms who were able to survive in multiple or quickly changing ecological niches. That’s not the same thing as one day an archaea popped out of the primordial oooze and immediately began replicating itself, eventually leading to complex organisms like mammals.

Nothing needs to be specifically said, about how life first began....when they say life first began as a simple-celled organism!

Who exactly is “they”? And for the umpteenth time, Abiogenesis, Panspermis et al are HYPOTHESES. Nothing more. “THEY” are basing their hypotheses on the best, most recent scientific evidence currently available. Thst evidenfenindicates that the processes hypothesizes in Abiogenesis are valid and can work under laboratory conditions.

The options are rather limited here, to say the least, right?

The options are only limited to ones imagination and how the current evidence does or does not support whatever it is that you can come up with.

You do a whole lot of looking down your nose at people and ignoring all of the science but have provided nontestablemornreoesrablemgtpotgesis of your own. This mindset is many things. Based on logic or science are not on the short list though.

a reply to: turbonium1

And here we go, you are into the crux of the matter. YOU are upset you are a primate. You are, I am, all Homo Sapiens are. You took this from a scientific argument, to one based on outrage and pearl clutching...

You also can't back up your claims. I can and I am not putting peer reviewed papers you can not access in, so you can't moan about that.