Rewriting Evolution ~ Darwin was wrong

[Drew_Ali]

I come across a lot of threads that I don't give a fuck about and this has now topped my list

no offense TS

Clearly...........

 

[Drew_Ali]

Ahhh where was I ????

Oh Yes...........

"The tree of life (TOL), as an organizing metaphor and concept, has been greatly challenged by the discovery of extensive horizontal gene transfer. While various attempts have been made to preserve the traditional TOL, other efforts are now focused on phylogenetic analysis and evolutionary reconstruction beyond the TOL. The articles in this special thematic series of Biology Direct demonstrate methodologically and conceptually new and constructive ways of working with and thinking about the TOL and its phylogenetic legacy. Whether these approaches modify or ultimately reject the TOL, they show the wealth of insight gained by thinking beyond a central icon of evolutionary biology."
http://www.biology-direct.com/series/tree_of_life

Early evolution without a tree of life?????

Life is a chemical reaction. Three major transitions in early evolution are considered without recourse to a tree of life. The origin of prokaryotes required a steady supply of energy and electrons, probably in the form of molecular hydrogen stemming from serpentinization. Microbial genome evolution is not a treelike process because of lateral gene transfer and the endosymbiotic origins of organelles. The lack of true intermediates in the prokaryote-to-eukaryote transition has a bioenergetic cause.

This article was reviewed by Dan Graur, W. Ford Doolittle, Eugene V. Koonin and Christophe Malaterre.
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/6/1/36

 

[Drew_Ali]

Humans are apes, have been and always will be.

You gotta do your research.

Evolution is vast and difficult topic.

I can't sit there and tell you from 500 millions ago to the presents.

You know many species they are and were???

ok.. so where did all this life on this earth from man, animals, to plants, trees, etc., come from?

and dont you find it funny that everything in and on this earth is linked and needed eachother to live here? like if bee's, for instance, went extinct; life would drastically change.

us as humans, even the earth, need every animal that is here to maintain the earth.

almost like everything that is here, is 'meant' to be here, right? cuz if it has no reason, then it wouldnt be here, no?

so how does everything here perfectly fit together, by accident?

Going to continue reading thread, but just thought id coment on this here.

If everything on earth perfectly fit togethee, there wouldnt be extinct species. Do you know what percentage of species throughout earths history are extinct?

Educate yourself.

Thanks for reading brother.......

You make a great point about the math involved in evolution.......

There are several mathematicians that disagree with the probabilities of of the smallest self-replicating organism arising from pure random chance..........

" 'Survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection.' No matter what phraseology one generates, the basic fact remains the same: any physical change of any size, shape or form is strictly the result of purposeful alignment of billions of nucleotides (in the DNA). Nature or species do not have the capacity for rearranging them, nor adding to them. Consequently no leap (saltation) can occur from one species to another. The only way we know for a DNA to be altered is through a meaningful intervention from an outside source of intelligence: one who knows what it is doing, such as our genetic engineers are now performing in their laboratories."

Cohen, I.L. (1984)

Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities

New York: NW Research Publications, Inc., p. 209

"Cohen showed that the purely mathematical probability AGAINST that organism arising by pure chance is a number with (over) 180,000 zeroes after it (ie., 10 to the 180,000th power.) This is mind-boggling when we consider that superscript numbers, or "powers" tell how many zeroes are in a number.

When dividing superscript numbers, we subtract powers. Since there are 10 to the 80th power seconds in the evolutionary time-frame, there would have had to have been 10 to the 178,920th power random tries PER SECOND for purely random chance to accomplish creation of the SIMPLEST living organism. And that would only get the first organism. Mathematicians consider any probability with a power greater than 50 (that is, a number with 50 zeroes) to be truly "impossible."

Mad impossibilities connected to evolution...................

Educate yourself..................

 

[Bodhi]

It is only 2 mins.........

No, I'm talking about in the OP. Specifically in the article you're using to back up your argument. This youtube video has nothing to do with any of that. You wanted someone to address the OP and I'm doing it so let's not diverge from it.

 

[Drew_Ali]

Fair enough........

This.......

Ahhh where was I ????

Oh Yes...........

"The tree of life (TOL), as an organizing metaphor and concept, has been greatly challenged by the discovery of extensive horizontal gene transfer. While various attempts have been made to preserve the traditional TOL, other efforts are now focused on phylogenetic analysis and evolutionary reconstruction beyond the TOL. The articles in this special thematic series of Biology Direct demonstrate methodologically and conceptually new and constructive ways of working with and thinking about the TOL and its phylogenetic legacy. Whether these approaches modify or ultimately reject the TOL, they show the wealth of insight gained by thinking beyond a central icon of evolutionary biology."
http://www.biology-direct.com/series/tree_of_life

Early evolution without a tree of life?????

Life is a chemical reaction. Three major transitions in early evolution are considered without recourse to a tree of life. The origin of prokaryotes required a steady supply of energy and electrons, probably in the form of molecular hydrogen stemming from serpentinization. Microbial genome evolution is not a treelike process because of lateral gene transfer and the endosymbiotic origins of organelles. The lack of true intermediates in the prokaryote-to-eukaryote transition has a bioenergetic cause.

This article was reviewed by Dan Graur, W. Ford Doolittle, Eugene V. Koonin and Christophe Malaterre.
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/6/1/36

 

[Bodhi]

All that says is that the tree of life as a concept is inaccurate. It does not say that evolution is false. The New Science article goes on to say that a better metaphor for the evolutionary history would be a web.

 

[Drew_Ali]

All that says is that the tree of life as a concept is inaccurate. It does not say that evolution is false. The New Science article goes on to say that a better metaphor for the evolutionary history would be a web.

You are just not digesting the material..........

Again a web without "common ancestors".........

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. ...

 

[Bodhi]

Without [the tree concept] the theory of evolution would never have happened.

Because

The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking

In other words, had Darwin not come up with the tree of life metaphor, he might not have been able to explain his theory of evolution. The metaphor was central to his theory.

Today, we know more about evolution so we can afford to replace the concept with a more accurate depiction of how evolution works.

Again, the article does not say evolution is false.

 

[Drew_Ali]

Without [the tree concept] the theory of evolution would never have happened.

Because

The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking

In other words, had Darwin not come up with the tree of life metaphor, he might not have been able to explain his theory of evolution. The metaphor was central to his theory.

Today, we know more about evolution so we can afford to replace the concept with a more accurate depiction of how evolution works.

Again, the article does not say evolution is false.

Again......

The article illustrates that what was once known as tree of life.......

Has failed to describe the origins of life.........

A better way to describe them is as a tangled web..........

Which eliminates "common ancestors"......

Thusly..........

Debunking the theory that one species evolved into many...............

 

[Jabu_Rule]

The evolution of a wack poster. This dude has the stench of a once dead now risen poster. I can't put my finger on it.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

Look how quick this homotional nigga flagged me. lol. I didn't even finish typing out my thoughts.

 

[Drew_Ali]

The evolution of a wack poster.

LOL.....

Fuck boy......

I remember you crying to the mod's about how I hurt your feelings.........

Begging for me to get banned.......

Run along......

Out of my thread faggot...............

Before you get embarrassed again.................

 

[Jabu_Rule]

The evolution of a wack poster.

LOL.....

Fuck boy......

I remember you crying to the mod's about how I hurt your feelings.........

Begging for me to get banned.......

Run along......

Out of my thread faggot...............

Before you get embarrassed again.................

No such thing happened. I do recall speaking about your retarded rants though. Case in point.

 

[ohhhla]

Without [the tree concept] the theory of evolution would never have happened.

Because

The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking

In other words, had Darwin not come up with the tree of life metaphor, he might not have been able to explain his theory of evolution. The metaphor was central to his theory.

Today, we know more about evolution so we can afford to replace the concept with a more accurate depiction of how evolution works.

Again, the article does not say evolution is false.

Again......

The article illustrates that what was once known as tree of life.......

Has failed to describe the origins of life.........

A better way to describe them is as a tangled web..........

Which eliminates "common ancestors"......

Thusly..........

Debunking the theory that one species evolved into many...............

Evolution doesn't describe the "Origins of life"

It reaches on diversity and change over time.

You can't even get the topic right

 

[Bodhi]

Again......

The article illustrates that what was once known as tree of life.......

Has failed to describe the origins of life.........

except evolution does not deal with the origin of life

 

[Drew_Ali]

Again......

The article illustrates that what was once known as tree of life.......

Has failed to describe the origins of life.........

except evolution does not deal with the origin of life

LOL......

It does however state that one species evolved into many...........

NO???????

 

[Drew_Ali]

The evolution of a wack poster.

LOL.....

Fuck boy......

I remember you crying to the mod's about how I hurt your feelings.........

Begging for me to get banned.......

Run along......

Out of my thread faggot...............

Before you get embarrassed again.................

No such thing happened. I do recall speaking about your retarded rants though. Case in point.

@IRS you're wise enough to know that that's not how you win an argument. It's cute and funny when used properly but his activities were borderline stalking. Dude was reckless towards everybody and he was polluting threads with his wackness. It's not like Kai didn't offer him proper rebuttals in the thread in question. What was the point of him doing all that extra shit like stalking her in other threads and fucking up the debate thread, trying to intimidate other mods?

Get the fuck out of my thread.......

I stalked no one........

Lying ass fuck nigga............

A bunch of evidence for you to respond to........

But like always.......

You come with your feelings.......

Tenderhearted ass nigga..........

 

[Drew_Ali]

@kai

Do yall ban niggas for excessive flagging???????

cause this nigga @FuriousOne........

Is out of control.......

Wacking scriptures......

Have you no shame nigga????????

 

[ohhhla]

Abiogenesis - look it up.

We've caught you in your undercover trolling.

 

[The True Flesh]

Seriously, are these posters trolling? please tell me they trolling!

If not they're literally that dumb that they read the OP and page after page of the thread and still think the threadstarter is claiming/has claimed that "evolution" as a whole is "false"

Am I really the only one who understands what this thread is about?

Why does everybody think this has something to do with religion?

Imma break it down real quickly for the remedial:

Obviously things evolve adapt and mutate.

Only dumb religious people say "evolution is a lie"

.......what they mean to say is:

Evolutionary theories (Darwin's or any others) have proposed that every living thing has a common ancestor, however they haven't been able to prove it nor will they ever prove it.

NOW!

With absolutely no religious bias, scientists have discovered that Darwin's tree of life theory is incorrect, thus making it even harder to substantiate claims of all living things having a common ancestor.

The FACT that this is a STRICTLY SECULAR development in biological science is what makes it a HUGE lauce for the anti-creationists.