Black Boy King
New member
No one has a rebuttal for you drew, they gonna just keep throwin insults and attempt to discredit you
thats how shyt goes here. niggas hellbent on being right as opposed to exchanging ideas. theyll say you're dumb but they wont present proper rebuttal becuz maybe they dont have any
thats how shyt goes here. niggas hellbent on being right as opposed to exchanging ideas. theyll say you're dumb but they wont present proper rebuttal becuz maybe they dont have any
Perfect;5521888 said:
He's 100% bias, that's his problem. So to "debate" with him is pointless.
He's set on a creator and how evolution is bullshit, no matter who posts or what is posted, he will not accept it. He will view it as a troll post or as a bullshit post with no credibility.
If he was more open minded then it would make a better discussion.
Smash_Adams;5518751 said:
Humans are stupid to an extent.
That's why the concept of God was made up.
Imagine you're an early human ancestor.
You don't how it rains, how the sun comes up and etc.
Some things in life look cool and design to the human's perspective.
We will think it's designed because how beauty like the grand canyon, and etc looks.
Black Boy King
New member
LOL. @VIBE you a hoe
ohhhla you just a dumb nigga
ohhhla you just a dumb nigga
This thread is over. Let me explain why..
@Drew_Ali..
If you would have continued reading the article in New Science, you would know that the writer expresses his belief that the tree should be swapped for the image of a web to explain evolution.
It is not to say that evolution is false but that evolution has to be depicted in another way other than a tree.
Read here..
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.
http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html
@Drew_Ali..
If you would have continued reading the article in New Science, you would know that the writer expresses his belief that the tree should be swapped for the image of a web to explain evolution.
It is not to say that evolution is false but that evolution has to be depicted in another way other than a tree.
Read here..
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.
http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html
Why a "web" as opposed to a "tree"?
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).
http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html
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).
http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html
@Oceanic......
You cant read nigga.....
"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
Ironic that Darwin's destruction comes from Oceanic biology...............
You cant read nigga.....
"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
Ironic that Darwin's destruction comes from Oceanic biology...............
Last edited:
Members online
No members online now.