A big-bang theory gets a big boost: Evidence that vast cosmos was created in split second

[Bodhi]

So the web still suggests common descent.

 

[bambu]

So the web still suggests common descent.

No.....

The evidence in the article suggests that you cannot use a tree model for ancestral descent.........

Therefore genes form different organisms cannot be placed in a tree structure.......

In part because they do not share common descent.......

Rather the genes would have to transfer horizontally or across various tree-like structures..........

As an example.........

The genetics for a frog and a human cannot be included in the same tree............

Because the frog and human have differing "evolutionary" or created ancestors.........

Debunking Darwinian evolution...............

& scoring points for Intelligence.............

 

[Bodhi]

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.

 

[bambu]

with species being

closely related in some respects but not others.

 

[Bodhi]

The article says clearly that it does happen vertically, but not exclusively. That is why the tree is no longer accurate and the web is a better representation. Still, common descent is implied.

 

[Bodhi]

Yeah, post your gifs mow that you've gotten backed into a corner.

 

[Bodhi]

*dmx voice* mow mow

 

[bambu]

The article says clearly that it does happen vertically, but not exclusively. That is why the tree is no longer accurate and the web is a better representation. Still, common descent is implied.

Implied.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.

LOL........

If it does not happen exclusively then it debunks the theory completely........

Species are closely related in some respects but not others.?.?.?.?.?.

Not related enough to establish a tree, which also illustrates that a common ancestor cannot be established.........

 

[Bodhi]

If it does not happen exclusively then it debunks the theory completely........

 

[bambu]

If it does not happen exclusively then it debunks the theory completely........

I forgot about you anti-creationists...............

You will continue supporting the theory regardless of what the evidence suggests.............

Oh, It does not happen exclusively???????

No problem........

We will just adjust the theory to fit new evidence..........

Might be good enough for you.............

But the half-assed theory cannot stand up to objective analysis................

 

[Bodhi]

Prove it.

 

[Bodhi]

Bambu: I'm going to lightly skim this article because the title of it tricked me into believing that it proves my bullshit yet as I read, I'm not really going to take in any information with intellectual honesty; instead, I'm going to apply selective "seeing" and only understand the article by twisting it to my ignorant point of view. Then, I'm going to spam the boards with it and post wack gifs of a gay nigga from the 300 movie to look smart but in reality appear anything but.

 

[bambu]

Prove it.

O.K.

"Vestiges" such as the pineal gland have been debunked, yet evolutionists continue to support the theory..........

The Cambrian explosion debunks the "slow-pace" of evolution, yet evolutionists continue to support the theory..........

Genetics debunk the tree of life, yet evolutionists continue to support the theory..........

DNA evidence suggests that the blueprint for all life is similar to computer code, which must be written, yet evolutionists continue to support the theory..........

Not all life has been observed to "progress"......

Dollo's Law, (stating that once a lineage had lost or modified organs or structures, that they couldn’t turn back the clock and un-evolve those changes. Or, as he put it, “an organism is unable to return, even partially, to a previous stage already realized in the ranks of its ancestors,”) has been debunked, yet evolutionists continue to support the theory..........

Darwin's moths have been debunked, removing another "example" of evolution, yet evolutionists continue to support the theory..........

Now what?.?.?.?.?

You are the nigga skimming articles..........

Shit, you didn't even know that there was a full article posted...........

oceanic: I am on the side of mainstream science, so I am right & I know everything, but I really don't know shit............

furious one: I'm gonna sit on the sidelines and mash buttons because I remember when that nigga bambu ethered my ass not too long ago..........

 

[Bodhi]

"Vestiges" such as the pineal gland have been debunked, yet evolutionists continue to support the theory..........

The Cambrian explosion debunks the "slow-pace" of evolution, yet evolutionists continue to support the theory..........

Genetics debunk the tree of life, yet evolutionists continue to support the theory..........



DNA evidence suggests that the blueprint for all life is similar to computer code, which must be written, yet evolutionists continue to support the theory..........

Not all life has been observed to "progress"......

Dollo's Law, (stating that once a lineage had lost or modified organs or structures, that they couldn’t turn back the clock and un-evolve those changes. Or, as he put it, “an organism is unable to return, even partially, to a previous stage already realized in the ranks of its ancestors,”) has been debunked, yet evolutionists continue to support the theory..........

Darwin's moths have been debunked, removing another "example" of evolution, yet evolutionists continue to support the theory..........

Now what?.?.?.?.?

You are the nigga skimming articles..........

Shit, you didn't even know that there was a full article posted...........

genetics may have proved the tree to be an inaccurate concept, but it has definitely not debunked evolution, which is what you're claiming.. So again, prove it. And this time, try not to divert to avoid this ether. All that other shit you talkin has been, like this tree topic, been explained to you before.

Show me how I didn't know there was a full article.

 

[bambu]

Prove what?????????

We now overstand "the tree to be an inaccurate concept"............

Because there is no way to show common ancestors............

Differing organisms have differing heritages and cannot be placed in a tree diagram.............

Because in genetics the tree diagram only works with genes/organisms that share a common ancestor...........

There is a tree for humans............

There is a tree for frogs...........

The concept that they share common ancestors or can be placed in the same tree is inaccurate............

 

[Jabu_Rule]

@bambu oozled, word son, i remember you had that tantrum like a child and had this crazy outburst which confused me and threw me off a bit. Then you stalked me and stalked females to show that you're an equal opportunity stalker. Since then i a haven't bothered to respond to your inanity and flimflam, but enjoy your dual with Oceanic while i delve into different topics like a sane nigga. I just felt compelled to flag you cuz i was bored. My bad.

 

[Bodhi]

The tree may be inaccurate because of horizontal gene transfer but that does not mean vertical transfer does not happen. So common descent is still suggested with the web representation.

 

[bambu]

The tree may be inaccurate because of horizontal gene transfer but that does not mean vertical transfer does not happen. So common descent is still suggested with the web representation.

"All life evolved from one organism"........

Yet, only some organisms can be validated using a tree diagram, but for the ones who cannot we will just say horizontal or web-like and call it a day.......

GTFOH...........

BAMBU WINS!!!!

FLAWLESS VICTORY!!!!

 

[Bodhi]

The tree may be inaccurate because of horizontal gene transfer but that does not mean vertical transfer does not happen. So common descent is still suggested with the web representation.

"All life evolved from one organism"........

Yet, only some organisms can be validated using a tree diagram, but for the ones who cannot we will just say horizontal or web-like and call it a day.......

GTFOH...........

BAMBU WINS!!!!

FLAWLESS VICTORY!!!!

Yeah except the difference is that we're looking at a larger scale pattern.

As previously stated, vertical gene transfer is not argued to not exist. On the contrary, it does.. HOWEVER, horizontal gene transfer also occurs, which makes the web a better representation of the history if evolution of species rather than the tree.

 

[bambu]

The tree may be inaccurate because of horizontal gene transfer but that does not mean vertical transfer does not happen. So common descent is still suggested with the web representation.

"All life evolved from one organism"........

Yet, only some organisms can be validated using a tree diagram, but for the ones who cannot we will just say horizontal or web-like and call it a day.......

GTFOH...........

BAMBU WINS!!!!

FLAWLESS VICTORY!!!!

Yeah except the difference is that we're looking at a larger scale pattern.

As previously stated, vertical gene transfer is not argued to not exist. On the contrary, it does.. HOWEVER, horizontal gene transfer also occurs, which makes the web a better representation of the history if evolution of species rather than the tree.

You must have rode the short bus............

Some species are not related and cannot be properly placed in a vertical or tree diagram.......

Instead they must be represented horizontally...........

You say it supports Darwinism........

The consensus says it demands a re-examination of the theory..........

I say it is, but yet another example of the dismantling of the theory of evolution............