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

originally posted by: Barcs
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.

That's not what I'm saying, at all...

I don't know how life was created, at all.

Millions of different life forms exist on Earth - over 10,000 years, at least.

We have no idea how, or what, created all life on Earth.


It is not simply random - that much, I DO know.

a reply to: turbonium1

You can of course prove it was not say random? Again I'm going to point out I am not an atheist, I am deeply religious, just not abrahamic.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Barcs
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.

That's not what I'm saying, at all...

No, that's exactly what you're saying.

I don't know how life was created, at all.

Yet you're absolutely, unfailingly, certain that it wasn't by any natural processes despite all of the evidence supporting the current science and no evidence supporting your nonexistent hypothesis.

Millions of different life forms exist on Earth - over 10,000 years, at least.

What is your obsession with the very arbitrary 10,000 year mark? Do you honestly believe that the Earth is only 10KA or less? Or do you know so,egging that evolutionary biologists don't because that seems to be the one constant in your posts... After 10ka no new species have evolved etc.... Why do,you feel that a 10KA time frame for arbitrary events is so crucial?

We have no idea how, or what, created all life on Earth.

It is not simply random - that much, I DO know.

Contradict yourself much? We don't know how life began on Earth but you're arrogant enough to say definitively that it was definitely not random or resultant from mutations? What's your evidence supporting this position?

If you know for a fact that it was not random happenstance, then you must in turn have an alternate hypothesis with some legs to it. But you don't have an alternate hypothesis. All you have is willful ignorance based entirely on your personal incredulity. But it's the scientists who are wrong and arrogant lol. Hilarious how blind you are to your own hypocrisy.

originally posted by: peter vlar

Yet you're absolutely, unfailingly, certain that it wasn't by any natural processes despite all of the evidence supporting the current science and no evidence supporting your nonexistent hypothesis.



What is your obsession with the very arbitrary 10,000 year mark? Do you honestly believe that the Earth is only 10KA or less? Or do you know so,egging that evolutionary biologists don't because that seems to be the one constant in your posts... After 10ka no new species have evolved etc.... Why do,you feel that a 10KA time frame for arbitrary events is so crucial?


Contradict yourself much? We don't know how life began on Earth but you're arrogant enough to say definitively that it was definitely not random or resultant from mutations? What's your evidence supporting this position?

If you know for a fact that it was not random happenstance, then you must in turn have an alternate hypothesis with some legs to it. But you don't have an alternate hypothesis. All you have is willful ignorance based entirely on your personal incredulity. But it's the scientists who are wrong and arrogant lol. Hilarious how blind you are to your own hypocrisy.

Your argument is that life is created randomly, from lifeless matter on Earth. All the correct matter on Earth mixes together, and with time, and the correct environment(s), life is created.

And all life is created by the first life forms, at random, with time, etc.


While every other creation found on Earth comes from intelligent life, creating it.

The only creation that is not from intelligence - demands far more intelligence than all other creations, combined.

If life is not more complex, and far beyond any other creations, of human intelligence, I'd like to know what is!!


That's the problem I see with your argument - it suggests life is very simple to create, from random matter, mixed together!

Sure, of course. Let's all try to create a life form, OK? Simply mix all the proper ingredients, to make a life....wait awhile...and POP, life is created!

Repeat process, for all other life forms, if time permits.

10,000 years is not my obsession. It's the period of recorded history, on Earth. All we can prove is what we have seen, recorded, found to exist, and what we do not see, record, or find to exist.

You have also ignored the fact that THOUSANDS of different species have become extinct, over the past century alone. It's likely more than that, but a conservative number makes my point, which is..

We have records of these extinct species. They didn't become extinct millions of years ago.

And we know all of these extinct species were NOT the 'ancestors' of any other species, right?

Each species became extinct, as that same species. The same species on Earth, over thousands of years, became extinct in the past century.

You just 'assume' that long-extinct species were 'ancestors' of all living species, today..

We know that several thousand species have become extinct, over the last century. Thousands more species will become extinct over the next century.

So what would this suggest has occurred over the past 10,000 years? It could be a quarter-million species became extinct. Who knows? The point is - hundreds of thousands species were living while humans lived on Earth, became extinct while humans lived on.

I know you've based your argument on DNA, and proteins, and physical similarities. They are simply common traits shared by all living organisms on Earth, or mostly so. This does not make all species originate from the most simple-celled species of life on Earth.

When we consider all of the fossils being claimed as ancestors of species today, it has been entirely based on 'carbon-dating'. And nobody dares to question them on 'carbon-dating'!

Since nobody can prove 'carbon-dating' is NOT accurate, it became the 'scientific method' of choice, to 'date' all fossils.

Without the invention of 'carbon-dating', nobody would know all their fossils, which they had suddenly 'discovered' around the world..... were actually 'millions of years' old.

How would anyone know if something is millions of years old? Unless we have validated something as being millions of years old, which is impossible, since we didn't live millions of years ago, to hold onto it for millions of years, to be able to validate it is millions of years old, with 'carbon-dating', to compare it against their fossils.


All fossils of extinct species, over the last century, have no ancestor species living today. No species over the past 10,000 years has changed in the least. And that is millions of living species.

All extinct species, over that same period, have no ancestor species living today. That's hundreds of thousands of extinct species, which have never 'evolved' into another species.


In fact, every shred of evidence shows that every single species on Earth, either extinct, or living today, have always been the exact same species, and always will be.


THIS is where any theory on the creation of life, of all life, must start from...

Existence, how life begins, is worth far more exploration. Continually spewing out theories on primordial soups is absurd, and shameful.

The reason is not what they'd like us all to believe it is, of course.

a reply to: turbonium1

Guys, it's pointless arguing with a troll who posits that evolution is, for some bizarre reason, 'shameful'. He refuses to listen, he doesn't understand science and he's not worth our time. He's an uber-troll. Nothing that any of us say will ever be good enough.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: turbonium1

Guys, it's pointless arguing with a troll who posits that evolution is, for some bizarre reason, 'shameful'. He refuses to listen, he doesn't understand science and he's not worth our time. He's an uber-troll. Nothing that any of us say will ever be good enough.

Wow, I didn't know you had 'guys'!

How many 'guys' do you have here?

If any of them want to discuss my points on the issue, they're welcome to ignore your plea, and act like an individual, mature adult, who isn't going to scurry around in packs of cowardly juveniles....

That's what I'd hope for, anyway, Not that I see it happening.

Just wanted to point this out:

There were no domestic dogs when we domesticated the wolf. Compare a wolf with a Labrador or a Chihuahua. Different animal, not necessarily different species because speciation is cataloged by humans. Some think dogs are a different species, others think it's a different subspecies.

There's proof of evolution right there.

We also have hybridisation, where you can mate a lion with a tiger, for example (two different species) to create a Tigon or a Liger. Their offspring are a totally different species capable of reproduction. You know what's even funnier? Different species being able to mate is proof that they evolved from a common ancestor.

Then we have the neanderthal and humans. Different species, same common ancestor. Modern Caucasian people are actually an hybrid of 3 different species or more, so yet another proof of evolution.

Even current day humans are different than humans 10 thousand years ago, for the fella that keeps mentioning a random number. We're taller, our bones are less dense, we're loosing our wisdom and pre-molar teeth, our chins are receeding and our pinkies are getting shorter. All proof of evolution.

So yeah, evolution is a fact.

Edit: forgot to mention, we're getting less hairier. Some say we're getting stupider, but I don't want to believe that even if some posters do make me question human intellect.

originally posted by: turbonium1
10,000 years is not my obsession. It's the period of recorded history, on Earth. All we can prove is what we have seen, recorded, found to exist, and what we do not see, record, or find to exist.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by recorded. Written records are only a few thousand years old. Petroglyphs and cave paintings go back much farther. The Lowenmensch is around 40 KA. So what exactly is your point of reference for 10 KA? You keep using it as your arbitrary cut off point for your imagined perceptions of the MES and evolutionary biology. That's all it is, your personal, arbitrary demarcation line.

You have also ignored the fact that THOUSANDS of different species have become extinct, over the past century alone. It's likely more than that, but a conservative number makes my point, which is..

We have records of these extinct species. They didn't become extinct millions of years ago.

I haven't ignored any such thing. The Pleistocene was what I studied. The people, where they lived, what they ate, how they hunted, their technological capabilities. I spent years and years studying this and continue to do so today. I'm not Monday morning quarterbacking like you are.

And we know all of these extinct species were NOT the 'ancestors' of any other species, right?

You're again using broad generalizations as if it makes a specific point. It doesn't.

Each species became extinct, as that same species. The same species on Earth, over thousands of years, became extinct in the past century.

You're going to try to tell me that nome of these creatures changed at all over the entirety of their lineage? If so, you might want to get a library card.

You just 'assume' that long-extinct species were 'ancestors' of all living species, today..

I just assume do, I? Not quite. I've studied the morphology and the genetics. The genetics alone tell us all about the common ancestry. You can protest all you like but it doesn't give your platform solid ground.

We know that several thousand species have become extinct, over the last century. Thousands more species will become extinct over the next century.

And?

So what would this suggest has occurred over the past 10,000 years? It could be a quarter-million species became extinct. Who knows? The point is - hundreds of thousands species were living while humans lived on Earth, became extinct while humans lived on.

Do,you have a point you're trying to make or do you just like to type?

I know you've based your argument on DNA, and proteins, and physical similarities. They are simply common traits shared by all living organisms on Earth, or mostly so. This does not make all species originate from the most simple-celled species of life on Earth.

When we consider all of the fossils being claimed as ancestors of species today, it has been entirely based on 'carbon-dating'. And nobody dares to question them on 'carbon-dating'!

No, fossils aren't dated using 14C. But please, continue to regale us with your knowledge of biology, chemistry and evolution because no fossils are dated with 14c and 14C is not the basis for any evolutionary timelines. Nice try though.

Since nobody can prove 'carbon-dating' is NOT accurate, it became the 'scientific method' of choice, to 'date' all fossils.

Again with the carbon dating BS. All you're doing is demonstrating how little you actually seem to understand about any of the science that you hate. Carbon dating is only used on ORGANIC materials. Fossils are no longer organic after undergoing permineralizarion. They can not be dated with 14C which only has the ability to date back to 100 KA using scanning electron microscopy to count individual carbon atoms. Traditional 14C dating is only accurate to about 40 KA.

Furthermore, 14C dating has been tested against both dendrochronology and ice cores and guess what? It comes back time and time again well within the known margin of error. Funny that...

Without the invention of 'carbon-dating', nobody would know all their fossils, which they had suddenly 'discovered' around the world..... were actually 'millions of years' old.

You don't know when to stop showing that you're completely ignorant to how we work do you?

How would anyone know if something is millions of years old? Unless we have validated something as being millions of years old, which is impossible, since we didn't live millions of years ago, to hold onto it for millions of years, to be able to validate it is millions of years old, with 'carbon-dating', to compare it against their fossils.

At this point, you've demonstrated so many times that you don't understand Radiometric dating in the least so there's no point in attempting to point you I'm the right direction because you won't even try to understand the material.

All fossils of extinct species, over the last century, have no ancestor species living today. No species over the past 10,000 years has changed in the least. And that is millions of living species.

First, you obviously don't understand what ancestor means. Second, every creature alive today is different than their ancestors were 10 KA. Including humans.

All extinct species, over that same period, have no ancestor species living today. That's hundreds of thousands of extinct species, which have never 'evolved' into another species.

You,really,like,to double down on the willful ignorance don't you? If a species goes extinct then how,do,you,expect it to evolve?

In fact, every shred of evidence shows that every single species on Earth, either extinct, or living today, have always been the exact same species, and always will be.

The only way that statement could be considered true is if you grew up on a farm with no electricity and no books. For the record, it's complete B.S.

THIS is where any theory on the creation of life, of all life, must start from...

I thought this thread was about evolution? Oh right... People who are scared of science need to include the origins of life in with evolutionary theory.

Existence, how life begins, is worth far more exploration. Continually spewing out theories on primordial soups is absurd, and shameful.

But not as shameful as making statements as though they were factual when you clearly don't have an understanding of the most basic aspects of the science you think you are falsifying. You aren't by the way. Just another minor correction for you, there's only 1 hypothesis regarding primordial soup and zero theories. Completely different game than the MES which is the most thoroughly evidenced theory in the history of science. There's more evidence supporting evolution than there is gravity.

The reason is not what they'd like us all to believe it is, of course.

Well don't keep us in suspense!!! What's the real reason? I'll bet this is gonna be good. Even better than ancestors living today and carbon dating fossils!

originally posted by: peter vlar
I just assume do, I? Not quite. I've studied the morphology and the genetics. The genetics alone tell us all about the common ancestry. You can protest all you like but it doesn't give your platform solid ground.

I have evidence to support my argument, no need to protest it not being on solid ground. That's your argument. Protest it all you like, it doesn't change that fact.


Evolution of every species on Earth into different species, is only proven WITH LIVING SPECIES CHANGING INTO DIFFERENT SPECIES AS IT OCCURS.

The problem is that it has never occurred, to this day, and will never occur, in future. That's why you look at extinct species, since you can make an argument for it, and it cannot be proven wrong. It is not proven, of course, but if it's not possible to prove it wrong, your 'theory' can live on and on, with nothing but inventions of something that 'once happened, millions of years ago'.


If evolution of all species into other species was true, it would already be proven by now. A species cannot change into another species at once, it would take a long time, right?

It would be a continuous process of change, without end. That's the problem here. No species IS continuously changing at all. Not any change, in even a SINGLE species. Among millions of species, continuously changing, which is your claim, the fact you refuse to accept is that NO species, among millions of species, has shown the SLIGHTEST change, over thousands of years.


You can study the subject for another ten years, it will not change this fact.


Sorry, but I will take the actual evidence, over your pompous ass claims, every time.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: peter vlar
I just assume do, I? Not quite. I've studied the morphology and the genetics. The genetics alone tell us all about the common ancestry. You can protest all you like but it doesn't give your platform solid ground.

I have evidence to support my argument, no need to protest it not being on solid ground. That's your argument. Protest it all you like, it doesn't change that fact.


Evolution of every species on Earth into different species, is only proven WITH LIVING SPECIES CHANGING INTO DIFFERENT SPECIES AS IT OCCURS.

The problem is that it has never occurred, to this day, and will never occur, in future. That's why you look at extinct species, since you can make an argument for it, and it cannot be proven wrong. It is not proven, of course, but if it's not possible to prove it wrong, your 'theory' can live on and on, with nothing but inventions of something that 'once happened, millions of years ago'.


If evolution of all species into other species was true, it would already be proven by now. A species cannot change into another species at once, it would take a long time, right?

It would be a continuous process of change, without end. That's the problem here. No species IS continuously changing at all. Not any change, in even a SINGLE species. Among millions of species, continuously changing, which is your claim, the fact you refuse to accept is that NO species, among millions of species, has shown the SLIGHTEST change, over thousands of years.


You can study the subject for another ten years, it will not change this fact.


Sorry, but I will take the actual evidence, over your pompous ass claims, every time.

Again? Dogs. Actual evidence of macro evolution. You keep denying it but sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting lalalala will not suddenly make it fake. Ah, and humans, I've provided several pieces of information on current human evolution.

On a sidenote, you're either the biggest troll on the internet or the most uneducated person I've ever seen. I sincerely hope for the first

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: turbonium1

Guys, it's pointless arguing with a troll who posits that evolution is, for some bizarre reason, 'shameful'. He refuses to listen, he doesn't understand science and he's not worth our time. He's an uber-troll. Nothing that any of us say will ever be good enough.

Wow, I didn't know you had 'guys'!

How many 'guys' do you have here?

If any of them want to discuss my points on the issue, they're welcome to ignore your plea, and act like an individual, mature adult, who isn't going to scurry around in packs of cowardly juveniles....

That's what I'd hope for, anyway, Not that I see it happening.

You don't have any points. You have blanket denials, a steadfast refusal to accept any evidence whatsoever that supports evolution, a denial of scientific facts, a range of wrong assumptions about DNA, the fossil record and biology, some truly odd feelings about evolution itself (it's somehow shameful? WTF?) and more other things than I can shake a stick at. Add on your refusal to believe that gravity even exists and you have the reason why you have to be a troll. Otherwise you're a science-denying oddball. So it's pointless to debate you because you're just going to make the same nonsensical points again and again.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Barcs
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.

That's not what I'm saying, at all...

I don't know how life was created, at all.

Millions of different life forms exist on Earth - over 10,000 years, at least.

We have no idea how, or what, created all life on Earth.


It is not simply random - that much, I DO know.

No, you don't know that. That is just what you want to be true. It's dishonest to say we have no idea. Scientists Do have some idea of how it started. Design has zero supporting evidence. At least abiogenesis has some experiments... You have given no supporting evidence whatsoever of design.

Evolution of every species on Earth into different species, is only proven WITH LIVING SPECIES CHANGING INTO DIFFERENT SPECIES AS IT OCCURS.

This seems to be the crux of your misunderstanding. There is no "as it occurs" when talking evolution. Speciation is not a sudden event, it can take thousands or even millions of generations. Genetic mutations have been observed as they occur but evolution is a long slow process, not sudden transformations. And yeah speciation has been observed in a lab, regardless. That along with canine evolution proves it. Organisms just slowly change over time. There is no "evolving into" anything.

a reply to: turbonium1

I have evidence to support my argument,

Everyone's been waiting brother...

a reply to: turbonium1


Your position is that speciation does not occur - that no new species has arisen due to evolutionary changes i.e. chromosomal changes. This is totally wrong and has been demonstrated many times in experiments. Here's a paper that describes chromosomal changes in primates and humans.

Y chromosome evolution: emerging insights into processes of Y chromosome degeneration

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Abstract The human Y chromosome is intriguing not only because it harbours the master-switch gene determining gender but also because of its unusual evolutionary trajectory. Previously an autosome, Y chromosome evolution has been characterized by massive gene decay. Recent whole-genome and transcriptome analyses of Y chromosomes in humans and other primates, in Drosophila species as well as in plants have shed light on the current gene content of the Y, its origins and its long-term fate. Comparative analysis of young and old Y chromosomes have given further insights into the evolutionary and molecular forces triggering Y degeneration and its evolutionary destiny.

Primate Y chromosomes and the future of Y chromosome Comparative genomic studies in primates provide further empirical evidence against human Y extinction21. Recent genomic data has shown that the rhesus macaque, which split from humans 30 MY ago, has an almost identical Y gene set as humans21. This implies that the gene content of the human Y has been stable in the past 30MY and that the last common ancestor had already reached an equilibrium Y chromosome gene number (Figure 3). A linear rate of decay would have instead predicted that human and rhesus would show little gene overlap on their Y’s since they should have lost genes independently since their split. This empirical data thus refutes the hypothesis of the imminent loss of the human Y. Interestingly, in some organisms, such as most nematodes, the Y chromosome has entirely disappeared (i.e. they have XX/X0 sex determination86), which is the evolutionary end point of all erosion of genetic activity from the Y. However, for the complete elimination of the Y to occur, an alternative way of sex determination must have evolved (such as by determining sex from the ratio of X chromosomes to autosomes), and any genes required for male function must have been translocated to other chromosomes. Thus, while the Y chromosome can ultimately be lost, it will do so only if alternative sex determination mechanisms and male fertility functions on other chromosomes have evolved first, and the Y can disappear without any negative fitness consequences. Otherwise, Y chromosomes can be a stable and important component of the genome in many species. Go to: Conclusions and perspectives Like many areas in biology, research on sex chromosome differentiation will greatly benefit from the genomic revolution. Many new models of sex chromosome evolution, at all stages of differentiation (that is nascent Y chromosomes as well as highly differentiated Y’s) can now be tackled at the DNA sequence and chromatin level, and sex-specific transcription profiles can be obtained. Though repetitive DNA and the ampliconic structure of many old Y chromosomes continues to pose a serious challenge into deciphering their genome sequence, and currently require very laborious and expensive approaches, new sequencing technologies that will provide much longer reads should allow us to make progress in sequencing such challenging sequences, including Y chromosomes. Furthermore, studying a diverse set of Y chromosomes will allow us to test if certain features identified in model organisms are a general characteristics of Y chromosomes. For example, are amplicons unique to primates, or do they enable survival of Y-linked genes in other taxonomic groups as well? Do other taxa have similar mega-base sized introns like Drosophila? Are evolutionary strata, which have already been found in both animals and plants, a general feature of sex chromosome evolution? In addition, such data will allow us to investigate further whether the processes that are currently hypothesized to drive Y chromosome evolution do, in fact, do so. That is for example whether sexually antagonistic mutations do indeed accumulate along the recombining portion of the sex chromosomes, and drive the suppression of recombination along the proto-sex chromosomes. It will also be of great interest to study more Y chromosomes from plants, particularly young ones, to establish whether retardation of Y chromosome degeneration is a general property in plants. Haploid Y-bearing cells in animals (sperm) show little gene expression but are expressed in plants (pollen), and haploid purifying selection may slow down Y degeneration in plants. Another challenge in our understanding is why not all homomorphic sex chromosomes stop recombining with each other, and become heteromorphic over long evolutionary times. For example, birds have homologous sex chromosomes which formed about 120 MY ago87, and are similar in age to the mammalian sex chromosomes88. Yet, while all mammals and most bird lineages have highly differentiated sex chromosomes, in some groups of birds, such as ratites, the sex chromosomes remain homomorphic89. Similar differences in the progression from homomorphic to heteromorphic sex chromosomes are seen among snake lineages. Comparisons of the genomic sequences and transcriptomes between taxa with homomorphic and heteromorphic sex chromosomes should provide clues to this puzzle. Both birds and snakes have female-heterogametic sex chromosomes, that is, females have a non-recombining W chromosome. Contrasting patterns of evolution on Y versus W chromosomes should reveal whether W chromosomes show similar patterns of degeneration, but specialization of their gene content to reflect the female-limited transmission of a W chromosome. There is also a high occurrence of nascent sex chromosomes in fish, reptiles and amphibians90-97, and tackling their patterns of sequence evolution at the molecular level will greatly increase our understanding of the molecular basis and evolutionary processes of the beginnings of Y degeneration. Also, there are several closely related groups in fish, reptiles and amphibians that differ in their male- or female heterogamety98, and examination of these species groups will allow us to contrast evolutionary forces occurring on Y vs. W chromosomes. Finally, invertebrates, which comprise the vast majority of animal species, have a multitude of sex determining mechanisms, and Y and W chromosomes have evolved independently many times in many different taxa15. Recent efforts have started to characterize transitions of sex chromosomes in insects99-101, but many other systems with interesting biology and karyotypes provide a treasure trove to study sex chromosome evolution15. To conclude, a comparative analysis of Y chromosomes at different stages of differentiation across the tree of life will give further insights into the characteristics and the evolutionary forces that act upon sex chromosomes.

Your problem is that you don't (or can't) read the science. There are over 500 journals and thousands of peer reviewed articles which support evolutionary theory. You might want to read a few of them.

It's nonsense, using charts, gobbledygook, all mixed within simplified half-truths.

Sifting through it, what do we find?

An example ....

They compare the Y chromosomes of humans, to those of rhesus monkeys....

Similarities in the two species are found.

It was noted in earlier findings - Y chromosomes will decay over time, shown by analysis of young and old Y chromosomes.


So does it mean one species was younger, compared to a different species, which was older?

And they have assumed that the older species had 'evolved' into the younger species, as well?


Do they make further assumptions based on this earlier assumption.... being true?


Can you specifically point out what species they are claiming to be 'ancestors' of another, specific species, within this paper?


They appear to take earlier work, and assume it is valid evidence, while they use it to support their own arguments....


Anything else?

a reply to: turbonium1

In typical fashion, you completely misunderstand and misrepresented the data presented to you and price yet again that you are far out of your depth and need to go back and learn the basics before you get into the molecular biology. Maybe a basic A&P or Bio 101 is more your speed because you definitely aren’t grasping the data being spoon fed to you and then running wild with confirmation bias because you don’t understand the material at hand. Just another day on ATS. Nothing to see here, just business as usual.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: turbonium1

In typical fashion, you completely misunderstand and misrepresented the data presented to you and price yet again that you are far out of your depth and need to go back and learn the basics before you get into the molecular biology. Maybe a basic A&P or Bio 101 is more your speed because you definitely aren’t grasping the data being spoon fed to you and then running wild with confirmation bias because you don’t understand the material at hand. Just another day on ATS. Nothing to see here, just business as usual.

I've asked for evidence to support this argument, nothing more...

What you are spouting is a nonsense excuse.


It's not evidence of any kind.

Anyone can understand it fails to hold up, even you.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: turbonium1

In typical fashion, you completely misunderstand and misrepresented the data presented to you and price yet again that you are far out of your depth and need to go back and learn the basics before you get into the molecular biology. Maybe a basic A&P or Bio 101 is more your speed because you definitely aren’t grasping the data being spoon fed to you and then running wild with confirmation bias because you don’t understand the material at hand. Just another day on ATS. Nothing to see here, just business as usual.

I've asked for evidence to support this argument, nothing more...

What you are spouting is a nonsense excuse.


It's not evidence of any kind.

Anyone can understand it fails to hold up, even you.

(Facepalm)
Evidence has been presented, you just don't understand it and therefore deny it. Or you are trolling us. My money's on trolling.

a reply to: turbonium1

I'll post this twice as it applies to two of your posts, with regards to evidence [Truth] and its evaluation [Potential Lies].

The river tells no lies,
though standing on the shore,
the dishonest man still hears them

This is why we must apply critical thinking and evaluation within all subject matters.

Otherwise we all fall to dishonesty or gullibility and we listen to though's whom's beliefs makes one feel better about ones self, like the afterlife and such.

Coomba98
[rip Stargate]