Ajackson17
New member
Oceanic ;6887114 said:
I'm done lol and even Yahshua didn't explain shit to people at the level of a fifth grader but spoke in parables.
A big-bang theory gets a big boost: Evidence that vast cosmos was created in split second
I'm done lol and even Yahshua didn't explain shit to people at the level of a fifth grader but spoke in parables.
Ajackson17
New member
DoUwant2go2Heaven?;6887291 said:
Eden is metaphysical not physical genesis is not actual history. It was more about becoming self aware and our connection to the universe/god/creator.
bambu;5826660 said:Fossils Indicate Common Ancestor for Old World Monkeys and Apes
Find suggests Old World monkeys and apes diverged 25 million years ago.
Chris Palmer
15 May 2013
http://www.nature.com/news/fossils-indicate-common-ancestor-for-two-primate-groups-1.12997
Two new Oligocene primates found in Tanzania, Rukwapithecus fleaglei (foreground left) and Nsungwepithecus gunnelli (background right), are shown here in an artist's reconstruction.
However......
Nature;5826624 said:
LOL @ the nerve of these anti-creationists...........
A.J. Trillzynski;6878024 said:I had some questions about evolution once, like how much do leading Scientists really know? what's the very latest scoop on this shit? so I went to the book store and I discovered that there is an entire science out there called evolutionary biology. And in this field of science, there is a shit ton of material to read up on. You would be amazed at how deep this stuff goes, every day people are learning more about how evolution works and the facts are piling up at an extraordinary rate.
for people in this thread parading their ignorance like its funny, its really not. you might think its funny and get a few lol's here and there, but to the outside world you are embarrassing yourself. don't be stupid. just don't. Instead of asking dumb questions on a message board, read a book. have an intelligent discussion about whatever doubts you might have afterwards. trying to have a debate without even understanding the most basic basic shit though.. its absurd. don't be stupid, get smart.
this shit will really open your eyes, man. you're not a Scientist, in truth. I'm not either. Just be honest, you don't know fuck all about evolution. But you would be AMAZED about how much IS KNOWN about evolution. you want documented evidence? read this book. you want to trace our lineage all the way back to primordial ooze with an actual evolutionary biologist holding your hand and explaining shit to you like a child the whole way through? read this book.
"For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself
with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy
grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an
evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in
Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was
within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces
by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that
the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no
evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste.
That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of
biology needs to change."
http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html
On The Origin of Species 22 years later, Darwin's spindly tree had grown into a mighty oak. The book contains numerous references to the tree and its only diagram is of a branching structure showing how one species can evolve into many.
The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened. The tree also helped carry the day for evolution. Darwin argued successfully that the tree of life was a fact of nature, plain for all to see though in need of explanation. The explanation he came up with was evolution by natural selection. ...
From tree to web
"As it became clear that HGT was a major factor, biologists started to realise the implications for the tree concept. As early as 1993, some were proposing that for bacteria and archaea the tree of life was more like a web. In 1999, Doolittle made the provocative claim that "the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree" (Science, vol 284, p 2124). "The tree of life is not something that exists in nature, it's a way that humans classify nature," he says."
Last edited:
Ajackson17
New member
So we just magically appeared on this planet?
Oceanic ;6888512 said:
Oh, I can read...........
"We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change."
Perhaps you should try............
& you have not destroyed shit.........
You ran in the other thread..........
bambu;6764702 said:
& now you destroying shit???????
Fall back or defend your bullshit science.....................
Bitch-ass nigga......
Last edited:
Oceanic ;6888684 said:
LOL.........
@ your stupid ass.......
If you would read the article, you would know that the tree descriptor fails because all life does not share a common trunk or ancestor..........
You didn't even read the shit, nigga..........
You aint got to lie to kick it..........
Lol.. Please show me where it says that.
By the mid-1980s there was great optimism that molecular techniques
would finally reveal the universal tree of life in all its glory.
Ironically, the opposite happened.
The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to
sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes rather than just RNA.
Everybody expected these DNA sequences to confirm the RNA tree, and
sometimes they did but, crucially, sometimes they did not. RNA, for
example, might suggest that species A was more closely related to
species B than species C, but a tree made from DNA would suggest the
reverse.
Which was correct? Paradoxically, both--but only if the main
premise underpinning Darwin's tree was incorrect. Darwin assumed
that descent was exclusively "vertical", with organisms passing
traits down to their offspring. But what if species also routinely
swapped genetic material with other species, or hybridised with
them? Then that neat branching pattern would quickly degenerate into
an impenetrable thicket of interrelatedness, with species being
closely related in some respects but not others.
We now know that this is exactly what happens. As more and more
genes were sequenced, it became clear that the patterns of
relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were
routinely swapping genetic material with other species--often
across huge taxonomic distances--in a process called horizontal
gene transfer (HGT).
By the mid-1980s there was great optimism that molecular techniques
would finally reveal the universal tree of life in all its glory.
Ironically, the opposite happened.
The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to
sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes rather than just RNA.
Everybody expected these DNA sequences to confirm the RNA tree, and
sometimes they did but, crucially, sometimes they did not. RNA, for
example, might suggest that species A was more closely related to
species B than species C, but a tree made from DNA would suggest the
reverse.
Which was correct? Paradoxically, both--but only if the main
premise underpinning Darwin's tree was incorrect. Darwin assumed
that descent was exclusively "vertical", with organisms passing
traits down to their offspring. But what if species also routinely
swapped genetic material with other species, or hybridised with
them? Then that neat branching pattern would quickly degenerate into
an impenetrable thicket of interrelatedness, with species being
closely related in some respects but not others.
We now know that this is exactly what happens. As more and more
genes were sequenced, it became clear that the patterns of
relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were
routinely swapping genetic material with other species--often
across huge taxonomic distances--in a process called horizontal
gene transfer (HGT).
Oceanic ;6888732 said:
Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans,
frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In
theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to
construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the
six animals.
He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory
evolutionary stories.
http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html
There was a full article........
SMH @ smart/dumb niggas..........
And here...........
***THE GODS FAVOR ME***
Last edited:
Of course the article did not state that there is no such thing as common descent............
It is a pro evolution magazine............
The evidence suggests that each gene has its own "evolutionary" ancestry & cannot be represented with all life descending from the same ancestor............
Of course evolutionary biologists now suggest a "web-like" structure with each organism "evolving" from different ancestors or "horizontally"..........
In genetics & genealogy we use tree structures because they accurately represent organisms with a common ancestor..........
When this cannot be achieved it is suggested that the organism is of a different "evolutionary" heritage.......
The evidence destroys Darwinism and supports the idea that all creatures were created after their own kind........
However, Evolutionists will always find a way to sweep their flaws under the rug, now accepting that the genes "evolved" differently, foh.............
It is a pro evolution magazine............
The evidence suggests that each gene has its own "evolutionary" ancestry & cannot be represented with all life descending from the same ancestor............
Of course evolutionary biologists now suggest a "web-like" structure with each organism "evolving" from different ancestors or "horizontally"..........
In genetics & genealogy we use tree structures because they accurately represent organisms with a common ancestor..........
When this cannot be achieved it is suggested that the organism is of a different "evolutionary" heritage.......
The evidence destroys Darwinism and supports the idea that all creatures were created after their own kind........
However, Evolutionists will always find a way to sweep their flaws under the rug, now accepting that the genes "evolved" differently, foh.............
Last edited:
Members online
No members online now.