Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by BELIEVERpriest
Does that mean we are directly related to algae too?

Every living organism in this planet shares a common ancestor, so yes, you're related to algae too. Of course the common ancestor of you and algae lived a quite long time before the common ancestor of you and some chimp..

Eco systems feed off of each other, ie the food chain. You expect me to believe that all life spawned from a homogenized ecosystem free of other competing micro organisms, and fanned out over time into the complicated biosphere we have today. Such a homogenized biosphere/ecosystem would collapse before any significant mutation could occur resulting in evolution.

reply to post by Jahari


Evolution (in this instance, in the context of evolution by natural selection or other causes of evolution of species) has nothing to do with quantum physics and the formation of the universe.

Evolutionary biologists are not physicists, those are two completely different fields.

I defer to a quantum physicist.

Originally posted by Jahari
Can a evolutionist explain to me how the universe came into being please?

What is an evolutionist? A person who understands the theory and doesn't deny the natural phenomenon of evolution? Is it a scientist who studies some aspect of evolution? In any of these cases, why would you expect that they had insight about the beginning of the Universe? That's a question for physicists, not biologists..

When are you evolutionists and creationists going to admit that the Ancient Alien theory answers all questions on both sides?

In a way, both theories are correct, but not in any way that has been popularized in western society.

Dinosaurs were wiped off of the Earth to allow primative man to flourish.
There is no "missing link" because our evolution took a quantum leap through artificially altered DNA.
"Gods" and "demons" are aliens and/or interdimensional beings competing for control of the earth and its people. We are fighting their proxy wars.

There is more evidence of ancient aliens throughout the world's cultures than the "popular" versions of both evolution and creation. But keep your eyes closed because it's too much to deal with.

A magic man who loves us unconditionally but is willing to torture us for all eternity for being naughty makes more sense?

A single creature out of the millions on Earth evolving exponentially more quickly over the rest more makes sense?

The truth is out there, as they say.

reply to post by rhinoceros


First of all there is no fossils from 2 billion years ago. If the earth was around back then it was null & void and dark.
There wasn't animals roaming the planet back then. And yes, I have been force fed that we all came from a one celled amoeba, what a crock of dookie. I hold to my previous statement, no proof = didn't happen.

And to be fair, they should touch on all versions of creation. If the crazy evolutionary model is taught as fact, then all of the creation versions should be taught as fact as well...equal rights....

reply to post by Blarneystoner


I like the way you put that. You can't discredit evolution. Just like you can't disprove creation. One must explain the other then. This may be a dumb queation but if we evolved from primates why is their still primates. You don't see birds and dinosaurs coexisting. If god created the universe who created god? I think the answers we seek will end up being more science fiction in the end.

Originally posted by BELIEVERpriest

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by BELIEVERpriest
Does that mean we are directly related to algae too?

Every living organism in this planet shares a common ancestor, so yes, you're related to algae too. Of course the common ancestor of you and algae lived a quite long time before the common ancestor of you and some chimp..

Eco systems feed off of each other, ie the food chain. You expect me to believe that all life spawned from a homogenized ecosystem free of other competing micro organisms, and fanned out over time into the complicated biosphere we have today. Such a homogenized biosphere/ecosystem would collapse before any significant mutation could occur resulting in evolution.

There are single species ecosystems too. You need look no further that pure cultures. I also recall a single species ecosystem in some South African mine. I'm sure there are plenty of examples. As long as there's a source of carbon, a source of energy, and some phosphorus and other essential elements, it's all good..

Originally posted by Murgatroid
reply to post by ravenshadow13

 

OR... Maybe the scientific method is actually a logical process.

Or perhaps you've swallowed far too many blue pills and believe whatever you WANT to believe.

Let me guess, you actually BELIEVE the NIST report...

The process isn't the problem.

The agenda and people BEHIND it are.

Like I said...

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses

I find science itself more likely to believe than a conspiracy theory about mind control and the Illuminati. But I'm really not a conspiracy theorist, actually. I just understand science as it is taught, because it logically makes sense to me. No one ever pressured me to believe that scientific studies are true, I just understand the process and do believe that science, especially in the field of evolutionary biology, is really critical in these following fields:

- medicine
- conservation
- agriculture
- animal breeding including domestic dogs and cats
etc.

reply to post by rhinoceros


What was the point of the beginning of your reply? If you felt you wanted to correct me do so respectfully. You only achieved comng off like a dick. I mean that in the best way possible. To explain how my car came into being I think it would be wise to discuss where the parts came from.

Originally posted by BELIEVERpriest

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by BELIEVERpriest
Does that mean we are directly related to algae too?

Every living organism in this planet shares a common ancestor, so yes, you're related to algae too. Of course the common ancestor of you and algae lived a quite long time before the common ancestor of you and some chimp..

Eco systems feed off of each other, ie the food chain. You expect me to believe that all life spawned from a homogenized ecosystem free of other competing micro organisms, and fanned out over time into the complicated biosphere we have today. Such a homogenized biosphere/ecosystem would collapse before any significant mutation could occur resulting in evolution.

Well, the environment itself isn't homogeneous. There are hot areas, cool areas, different chemical compositions. So then, even one population of one species of microorganism would eventually differentiate in order to adapt to its environment. There is competition between individuals, which fuels natural selection. Amen.

Originally posted by blockhead
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

First of all there is no fossils from 2 billion years ago. If the earth was around back then it was null & void and dark.
There wasn't animals roaming the planet back then. And yes, I have been force fed that we all came from a one celled amoeba, what a crock of dookie. I hold to my previous statement, no proof = didn't happen.

And to be fair, they should touch on all versions of creation. If the crazy evolutionary model is taught as fact, then all of the creation versions should be taught as fact as well...equal rights....

The oldest signs of life (on Earth) are ~3.7 billion years old, but I'd be happy if you showed me a 500 million year old fossilized camel or rabbit too. Also, you clearly haven't paid much attention. Amoeba are eukaryotes. All life certainly didn't come from eukaryotes. Eukaryotes are basically a phylum of Archaea (or a sister lineage), but also chimera in a sense that we have mitochondria (reduced alphaproteobacteria) and also chloroplasts (reduced cyanobacteria) in plants. Most genes of these organelles have been transferred from their genomes into ours, while others were lost and replaced by our orthologs. Google Reclinomonas americana mitochondrial genome. It's the closest known (to alphaproteobacteria). Some genes in it are still even in the same order as the orthologs in some alphaproteobacterial genomes (e.g. the sdh cluster). Apparenly this stuff is not "evidence", so how do you explain it again? How does it fit your creation myth

reply to post by blockhead


A scientist could make different populations of one species of a microorganism in a petri dish with a range of environments of temperatures and carbon, silicone, nitrogenous, sulfurous, whatever compounds you want. And then those populations can eventually become different species. It does take millions of years to happen, you know. Don't think these projects aren't already happening.

I mean, I can make populations of flies with all sorts of differentiated traits. So can you.

www.faculty.virginia.edu...

Who knows how you even define species... there are over a dozen species concepts.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by blockhead
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

First of all there is no fossils from 2 billion years ago. If the earth was around back then it was null & void and dark.
There wasn't animals roaming the planet back then. And yes, I have been force fed that we all came from a one celled amoeba, what a crock of dookie. I hold to my previous statement, no proof = didn't happen.

And to be fair, they should touch on all versions of creation. If the crazy evolutionary model is taught as fact, then all of the creation versions should be taught as fact as well...equal rights....

The oldest signs of life (on Earth) are ~3.7 billion years old, but I'd be happy if you showed me a 500 million year old fossilized camel or rabbit too. Also, you clearly haven't paid much attention. Amoeba are eukaryotes. All life certainly didn't come from eukaryotes. Eukaryotes are basically a phylum of Archaea (or a sister lineage), but also chimera in a sense that we have mitochondria (reduced alphaproteobacteria) and also chloroplasts (reduced cyanobacteria) in plants in our cells too, and most of their genes have transferred from their genomes into ours (others lost and replaced by our orthologs).

Someone give this dude a flag. He's even got gene transfer up in this hizzy.

Originally posted by blockhead

Originally posted by ravenshadow13

No, no, no.

"Evolution" within a species is really adaptation.
Between species is evolution.

No one ever SAID that an ape and human or feline and caning are the same species. They're not, look at they phylogenies below. They are in the same taxon. A taxon is just a group. Family, class, order, whatever, any distinct group. They share common ancestry.

Primate phylogeny


Carnivore phylogeny

Thanks for those links. Pretty graphs. They did give me a thought...what if the evolutionist theory of common ancestor is not a being, creature or organism at all. It is the basic building blocks of all life, all of the elements that make up all of us living entities. C, F, H, O, P, Ca, Na and all elements that make up all matter in the universe, that we know of. That's why there is so much common DNA in all living things and the slight variations that separate us all. The distinct species were all created at the same time from the beginning.

"And Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground..." Gen2:7

Oops, that just lends agreement to what the OP was talking about, evolution from a common ancestor over eons sounds ridiculous. Those two links don't prove anything. They just show someone's idea of what they want to believe about the origins of life. Until someone somewhere comes up with real archeological evidence of a common ancestor to all life, the evolution theory will remain a joke and comic book explanation to our beginnings. Until then creation needs to be taught in schools to our children and future generations along side the evolution farce. Or neither....

Hey dude, thanks. They're called cladograms. They're not "someone's idea of what they want to believe about the origins of life," they're based on fossil record, extant morphology, and genetics. Each branch is defined by a number of synapomorphies, and the order of the branches is determined by something called parsimony.

And until you read up on what those things even mean, I honestly don't want to hear it. I understand how your belief system works, it is at least time for you to try and grasp what we are proposing.

And *then* if you don't want to believe it, it is entirely your right. But if you have no idea what you are talking about, then you don't really have an argument.

And I say "we" because I do understand these arguments, am willing to teach and discuss them with anyone interested. If you spend the time to try to understand it and decide that it doesn't mesh with your belief system, that's totally cool.

But really, you act like cladograms are someone's drawing on the back of a napkin, and that is bologna. They are the result of hundreds and hundreds of peer-reviewed, unbiased scientific studies done by people who are OFTEN religious. Good grief.

Thanks for the education rhino & raven. Saves me the time of looking those things up myself.
I still don't see any proof to evolution in any of these examples. One day we will all have all the answers we will ever want. But like you, until I am shown absolute proof of evolution, I will not believe it. Heck I'm not even from Missouri!

So, you are stating that genetic traits that make up new species don't always go back to the original ancestor. That some new species are generated mid-stream so to speak, thus proving the evolution theory for all living things using Occam's Razor principle to pick the hypothesis to stick with. Bear with me, I am trying to grasp what you are wanting to prove. I am sorry I am not a geneticist nor have I studied cladistics which you seem so fluent in.
If I am missing your point toally please enlighten...

reply to post by Tylerdurden1

Those people are not bullies, they are just logical.

Logic has NOTHING to do with it.

"Logical" people do not destroy a man's career because they questioned Darwinism...

"...if you ask questions you’ll be working at McDonalds tomorrow”

“If you just stand up and question Darwinism – that’s it – your career is over” Source

Originally posted by blockhead
Thanks for the education rhino & raven. Saves me the time of looking those things up myself.

I still don't see any proof to evolution in any of these examples. One day we will all have all the answers we will ever want. But like you, until I am shown absolute proof of evolution, I will not believe it. Heck I'm not even from Missouri!

Did you look at the peppered moth study?

Send me a message and let's have a chat about what you mean by evolution and what sort of evidence you are looking for.

We don't ever have all of the answers, and I don't believe in absolute proof of anything. I believe in things in terms of evidence and likelihood, you know? If you think something is true, you test it, you look for evidence that supports what you think is true. And either your evidence supports your conclusion or not

And maybe I see a moth with a variation that lets it survive more than another, and soon enough a whole isolated group of moths have that variation and I call it evidence and proof.

And maybe you see the sunrise come up in the morning and call that proof of God. I don't suppose that you have absolute evidence of that, either.

I'm a tactual person. I like things that I can see. I like that I can understand population genetics and it makes sense to me, when I look at human disease and genetics, or genetics of beak adaptation, or whatever.

So, the moth example... there is evidence that shows that 1 population of moths + a variation = 2 populations of moth. Which is extrapolated to 1 species + variation = 2 species.

For the sunrise... I can't really perform any logic to explain why God might make the sun. I can't connect sun to God by anything other than "God made the sun"

And "one population makes two populations" just doesn't work with the same logic. Without evolution as part of that process, I just can't wrap my head around any logical explanation for why suddenly there are two populations of moths. Or two species. Including domestic cats and lions, for example.


P.S. You're from Texas--isn't discussing evolution illegal there already?

Forget comparing it to a belief in God, because it does seem crazy that a being outside our time and space started a chain of events that put in place all we have so you'd expect people with narrow thinking to reject that.

But lets examine just one side of this.

1. Evolutionists believe a chain of events occurred by nothing and with nothing where nothing existed before......... Now THAT requires more faith than anyone else has.

2. That we are the only intelligent beings in the universe in all dimensions and nothing else could therefore possibly exist to create us in the way we create things......... now THAT is just arrogance or stupidity or both.

Suck that opinion up!

Misconceptions about evolutionary theory and processes

MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.

CORRECTION: Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life's origins (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but this is not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.

MISCONCEPTION: Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance.

CORRECTION: Chance and randomness do factor into evolution and the history of life in many different ways; however, some important mechanisms of evolution are non-random and these make the overall process non-random. For example, consider the process of natural selection, which results in adaptations — features of organisms that appear to suit the environment in which the organisms live (e.g., the fit between a flower and its pollinator, the coordinated response of the immune system to pathogens, and the ability of bats to echolocate). Such amazing adaptations clearly did not come about "by chance." They evolved via a combination of random and non-random processes. The process of mutation, which generates genetic variation, is random, but selection is non-random. Selection favored variants that were better able to survive and reproduce (e.g., to be pollinated, to fend off pathogens, or to navigate in the dark). Over many generations of random mutation and non-random selection, complex adaptations evolved. To say that evolution happens "by chance" ignores half of the picture. To learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic. To learn more about random mutation, visit our article on DNA and mutations.

...

MISCONCEPTION: Species are distinct natural entities, with a clear definition, that can be easily recognized by anyone.

CORRECTION: Many of us are familiar with the biological species concept, which defines a species as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. That definition of a species might seem cut and dried — and for many organisms (e.g., mammals), it works well — but in many other cases, this definition is difficult to apply. For example, many bacteria reproduce mainly asexually. How can the biological species concept be applied to them? Many plants and some animals form hybrids in nature, even if they largely mate within their own groups. Should groups that occasionally hybridize in selected areas be considered the same species or separate species? The concept of a species is a fuzzy one because humans invented the concept to help get a grasp on the diversity of the natural world. It is difficult to apply because the term species reflects our attempts to give discrete names to different parts of the tree of life — which is not discrete at all, but a continuous web of life, connected from its roots to its leaves. To learn more about the biological species concept, visit Evolution 101. To learn about other species concepts, visit this side trip.

...

MISCONCEPTION: Taxa that are adjacent on the tips of phylogeny are more closely related to one another than they are to taxa on more distant tips of the phylogeny.

CORRECTION: In a phylogeny, information about relatedness is portrayed by the pattern of branching, not by the order of taxa at the tips of the tree. Organisms that share a more recent branching point (i.e., a more recent common ancestor) are more closely related than are organisms connected by a more ancient branching point (i.e., one that is closer to the root of the tree). For example, on the tree below, taxon A is adjacent to B and more distant from C and D. However, taxon A is equally closely related to taxa B, C, and D. The ancestor/branch point shared by A and B is the same as the ancestor/branch point shared by A and C, as well as by A and D. Similarly, in the tree below, taxon B is adjacent to taxon A, but taxon B is actually more closely related to taxon D. That's because taxa B and D share a more recent common ancestor (labeled on the tree below) than do taxa B and A.

It may help to remember that the same set of relationships can be portrayed in many different ways. The following phylogenies are all equivalent. Even though each phylogeny below has a different order of taxa at the tips of the tree, each portrays the same pattern of branching. The information in a phylogeny is contained in the branching pattern, not in the order of the taxa at the tips of the tree.

There's a lot more here. Will you all please read this?
evolution.berkeley.edu...

reply to post by AntiNWO

When are you evolutionists and creationists going to admit that the Ancient Alien theory answers all questions on both sides? The truth is out there, as they say.

The truth IS out there but the "History" Channel is the very last place you will find it...

If you go by the moniker "AntiNWO" and haven't figured this out by now, somethings very wrong.

Ancient Aliens is nothing more than MSM propaganda brought to you by the same people that brought you evolution.

The lies and fraud behind Ancient "Aliens" has been exposed for some time.

Ancient Aliens Debunked is a 3 hour refutation of the theories proposed on the History Channel series Ancient Aliens. It is essentially a point by point critique of the "ancient astronaut theory" which has been proposed by people like Erich von Däniken and Zecharia Sitchin as well as many others.

The film covers topics like: Ancient building sites: Puma Punku, The Pyramids, Baalbek, Incan sites, And Easter Island. Ancient artifacts: Pacal's rocket, the Nazca lines, the Tolima "fighter jets", the Egyptian "light bulb", Ufo's in ancient art, and the crystal skulls. Ancient text issues: Ezekiel's wheel, Ancient nuclear warfare, Vimana's, the Anunnaki, and the Nephilim.

Make sure you go to its parent website, where there is more video and lots of source documentation.

It was produced by Chris White and includes commentary from Dr. Michael Hesier.

Chris White has produced one of the most important video productions dealing with the Ancient Alien Phenomena With the added scholarly research from Michael Heiser this documentary is epic in its scope – answering just about every ”Alien” claim made on the Ancient Aliens television show, one of the most popular programs on television which is falsely spreading a “Psuedu Gospel” with the help of a complicit media, imagine folks seeing a show on “The History Chanel”? surely the History Chanel has done their homework and verified at least some of this shows claims? You will realize that it’s not just our national news media that has become lazy. Our History Channel seems to be rewriting history as well.

The Ancient Aliens show and its prime benefactor Giorgio Tsoukalos has one goal in mind. To Debunk the Judeo Christian world view and replace it with an age old story, A story the most beautiful of created angels used to temp earths first inhabitants. A psuedo gospel that will possibly sway even the “elect” with a future disclosure. When you hear for yourself so many Lies, disinformation and the twisting of the “truth” coming right from the mouth of Tsoukalos – one realized why Christ called Satan the “Father of Lies”. His followers on earth just can’t help but repeat them…..

www.supernaturalresearch.com...