Im not trying to start a debate you seem very smart did you know Humans Could get heart transplants from a pig and there blood I believe is similar to ours so did pigs come from humans Just saying
@ColdVolcano22 this is all unproven though. have we found a monkey that looks similar to a human ? no. we have no DNA proof. monkey DNA has one less chroma-zone than human. and if we were descended from apes we as their descendants even though we look different should be able to mate with them but the truth is we cant if we were related our genetic pool would be compatible but it isn't. i could go on and on for hours but im out of space
monkeys never turn to any other form, what's with this evolution brain. humans are turning to the ways of monkeys. the believers of evolution, please dont leave your brothers & sisters in the jungle without the civilisation that you enjoy. They sure miss you guys a lot..... lol
@daNDayati, how is it lies? Evolution has not been proven, it will never ever be proven and that is why we say theory of evolution and it will forever remain a theory. if we came from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys? I have not seen a single book, that says facts of evolution, all the books I have seen, says theory of evolution, hope that answers the question.
this is a deceitful presentation... estes is a dealer in hokum playing with a gullible crowd that needs to hear validation of where science and evolution "fails" and islam handily fills in the blanks.. no wonder muslims only account for less that 1% of scientific research..
@StopSpamming1, if we came from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys? I have not seen a single book, that says facts of evolution, all the books I have seen, says theory of evolution.
@StopSpamming1, Evolution has not been proved, it will never ever be proved, if it had been proved, we would have been saying fact of evolution, you still did not answer my question, if humans came from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?
This guy has no idea what he's talking about...if a caterpillar can change to a butterfly in days then monkeys can change to humans in millions of years...
I don't understand the stupid islam. Quran says drinking wine is prohibited but in paradise you will have rivers of wine and houris. So as per quran you have to live a pious life on earth but you will allowed to commit any sin in paradise. WHAT A STUPID RELIGION AND STUPID BOOK.
Unless religion can rationalise evolution within their beliefs, they are lost. I am sure it can be done, this man makes such good arguments but his arguments agains evolution are very weak at best. Why are there still monkeys? what a silly question so easy to answer. When I was four, evolution made perfect sense to me, creation sounded a bit sus. Adam was the first man? can't we just say God created him as a genetic quirk that boosted us above other primates and he was the first of our kind?
@mikkars250 I read it all in the 7th grade 25 years ago - it's all just a hypothesis and for those charts and pictures - I can draw them myslef "proofing" evolution of trees into fish.
Still, where are those fossils/remnants of TRANSITIVE forms from ape to man, from fish to cat?
why are there still monkeys, after all? his "scientific theory" does not explain it at all, that's the problem.
i can see that you're good at avoiding what i have to say and quick to criticize. you're the laughing stock of the Islamic community, perhaps Christianity too. so how does it feel?
i'll admit that science was never my forte, so perhaps you could talk logic and sensibly. please give me your source of evidence regarding ''tiktaalik''.
@volound that's like me asking you what riba' is, or what musharakah is and if you name me your scientists who deal with riba'. lol. definitely Google has the answer to all your questions and mine. astavisms is definitely some scientific word to prove the theory of evolution.
like i said, talk logically and sensibly, not scientifically. but i still can't help but wonder what we're gonna ''evolve'' into.
do you believe in dinosaurs, may i ask? if yes, how did dinosaurs come about?
@MrBabibubo "talk logically and sensibly, not scientifically"
in other words, dont bother to talk about what can be measured and demonstrated, just use meaningless rhetoric and fancy words that dont get anywhere.
ill answer your question about dinosaurs after you explain how the theory managed to predict the existence of the tiktaalik despite it being wrong.
im not letting you evade anything. deal with the issue "sensibly" and answer my question.
@MrBabibubo source of evidence for what? its all open source. try using wikipedia. use google. or the site of a body that reviews and publishes scientific journals.
you have the knowledge of the entire world at your finger tips. its not hard.
im curious. what do you think palaeontology is? or phyloneny is? can you name any muslims that are palaeontologists, or phylogenists?
@MrBOXA01 planets which contain chemicals that naturally form molecular bonds do so, in our case autocatalytic feedback loops i.e. simple replicators which proceeded to fill the oceans of early earth eventually increasing in sophistication forming lipid membranes around bubbles which protect the RNA and eventually DNA core of early single celled organisms, which evolved the capacity to live in colonies, becoming simple multi-cellular organisms like sponges..
@MrBOXA01 , which became intermediates like polyps which became early invertebrates which branched into vertebrates some of which became fish then amphibians one of which is famously the first to crawl onto dry land where amphibians branched off into reptiles which branched into both birds and mammals some of which survived the extinction event..
@MrBOXA01 that killed the dinosaurs became arboreal primates later descended and learned to walk upright in order to carry food/tools/young and of course these proto humans eventually became us.
this is what they teach at harvard, MIT, yale, oxford and cambridge. why do you think that is?
@volound Im sorry but i did not understand a word you said ! Basically your saying planets that contain chemicals magically ''evolved'' us humans ? Im sorry brother, but that makes no sense ! where did the planets come from ? where did this ''chemical'' itself come from ? see you make no sense. By the way, evolution is NOT a fact. Evolution is the most illogical, irrational concept i have ever heard in my life !
@MrBabibubo you dont know what evolved means, and you dont know what monkeys are. humans and monkeys are primates, humans share a common ancestor with monkeys, and humans evolved from apes.
robots? what?do you know what the word "robot" means?
@MrBabibubo "nope not answering the question there. what are humans gonna evolve to?"
i cant remember telling you that humans were going to evolve into something.
cheetahs and lions share a very recent common ancestor. asking if one evolved from the other is as stupid as asking "did your brother give birth to you, or did you give birth to your brother". as you can see, to anyone who understands evolution, its clear youre being silly.
youre just embarrassing yourself. go on wikipedia and read.
@volound so in other words, you're trying to say that we're not gonna evolve anymore? and why not?
im sorry, but im just mirroring how stupid your statement was. that "humans and monkeys are primates, humans share a common ancestor with monkeys, and humans evolved from apes." by giving you the example of cats. as you can see, to anyone who believes Allah created Adam, it's clear you're being silly.
i can tell you can't answer my questions. you know yourself YOUR theory doesn't make sense.
@MrBabibubo because allelle frequencies change due to natural selection. that is, environmental pressures that select which individuals survive and which dont.
todays societies alleviate this selection process as individuals can survive regardless of their genetic makeup. there are no environmental pressures that cause change, or evolution.
@MrBabibubo "as you can see, to anyone who believes Allah created Adam, it's clear you're being silly."
i dont doubt that. people are free to believe what they want. but people who believe in that particular creation myth have do deal with the fact that all the evidence goes against them. for example, people that believe in adam and eve have no explanation for atavisms, you probably dont even know what they are. youre the laughing stock of the scientific community, how does it feel?
@MrBabibubo If evolution is false like you say, it should have no predictive value. why then, have scientists been able to use evolution to extrapolate and make accurate scientific predictions?
e.g. the 2004 discovery of an intermediate link between fish and tetrapod (called the tiktaalik)
this “missing link” was worked out to have lived around 375 million years ago BEFORE it was found. After searching for 4 years, it was found within rocks of this specific age.
Ur idiots...Explain how if you look how the further you go up the great apes specie, DNA sequencing also increases between man and primate, and eventually culminates with chimpanzees? Explain how we share up to 4% DNA with Neanderthals? Anyways you guys don`t believe in facts.
@superoriginalname - "Mice and men share about 97.5 per cent of their working DNA, just one per cent less than chimps and humans. The new estimate is based on the comparison of mouse chromosome 16 with human DNA. Previous estimates had suggested mouse-human differences as high as 15 per cent." So we came from mouse too right??? How stupid men like you can be!!! Go climb the trees monkey!!! There is no facts about evolution!!!
@geokonti humans and mice share a common ancestor with mice that is much more recent than the ancestor with chimps. this is why the genome has diverged.
humans and bananas also share a common ancestor, that can be traced back to when flora and fauna diverged into separate phylogenetic trees.
do yourself and your religion a credit, educate yourself. if i was muhammad i would be ashamed of the ignorance of my adherents. its the 21st century, earn the right to live in it.
@volound - so you're telling me we came from some flower, tree or something similar??? Wow I didn't know that "scientists" who believe these things and normal people like you are so primitive! Not even caveman made such stupid assumptions!!! Take care!
And He (Allah/God) has created you in different stages and different forms ... And Allah has caused you to develop as a good growth from the earth. [Qur'an 71:14,17] So what does this mean?
@firecraxker are you trying to pretend that describes evolution? because thats a horrible description. unless you think the qur'an is extremely vague, that verse is not describing any evolutionary process.
MiddleEast ALWAYS at war! Mohammad violent SINFUL Murderer! Jesus Healed/Blessed/ Peace/Salvation/GOD! All MUSLIMS who converted to Christianity ARE HAPPY/FREE OF ABUSE/MISERY! Your leaders are killing you! All Christians LOVE YOU! PLEASE accept JESUS CHRIST as your SAVIOR! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! PLEASE REBEL/ACCEPT JESUS! Be free of this horror! Visit wlix radio.com
This guy has no idea what he is talking about. Evolutionary theory doesnt state that humans evolved from monkeys. That is a common misconception.
As for missing links, there are plenty of intermediate skeletons found. And there is plenty of evidence for evolution. Dont just take my word for it, read about it. There is plenty of material out there.
He should do some research on evolution. He knows nothing about it, Im afraid.
oh btw, I noticed how you always say "darwinism tactic", meaning you must obviously u debate a lot of people about religion, and the arguments you use are blatantly found in religious website that argue against it. your trying to argue with me why darwinism could be false, yet avoiding your own belief about religion. I'm questioning you, why do you believe in something that has absolutely no proof at all? look how religious fucks ppl up this probably how fools acted back then watch?v=5ZmM90cFc-I
@Flows234 Judging from your last post, it is clear that you are a typical narrow-minded atheist with ridiculous hatred to religion derived from personal bias and a failed religious experience. If you think attacking religion makes you look smart & educated that is utter stupidity. You’re not debating for better scientific understanding, you’re just doing it to score some “easy wins” against ignorant fundamentalists.
@ShogunV Let me end my point with this. I don't believe Darwin got it right and his theory will probably to overtaken by another one. I definitely don't see religion with any validly, and I believe "creationist" are clinging on to their last threads by debating science by attacking their flaws. In time, we'll find more proof about how the world was really created. In physics, we have the great edward witten, stephen hawkings, researching M-Theory. Even hawking believes this may disprove god.
Homochirality is the stake through the heart for evolution..life by time and chance impossible..biochemical chemistry has reached a dead end paradox!!!..people think simple chemicals could some how form life, they dont know real chemistry..they would rather believe in some unknown chemistry than an intelligence..this is why Miller failed to make life in a test tube and no building blocks were ever made or assembled..right and left handed amino acids together are toxic to life..
@Flows234 By attacking someone just for simply holding an opposing belief that you dislike (& calling them ignorant & fools), you are displaying bigotry not science. People like you are parasites to science.
It is a waste of time debating such narrow-mindedness. I really should not be posting anything again since all you gonna do is reply out of typical atheist pride just so you have the last word to say. So goodbye
@killer4hire If your comments are serious, then you have no idea about evolution; all your questions clearly demonstrate this. If you doubt evolution you can have your DNA sent to National Geographic Project (can't remember the exact name). As predicted by Darwin, before any fossil evidence and way before DNA was even contemplated, we all came from East Africa. No 'if', no 'buts', we DID. Over 100,000 have taken part (incl. me); now guess where each and every one is traced back to. Rgs.
You misunderstood me. I was not attacking evolution. I was just demonstrating that evolution can occur without the parent species disappearing. Like for example due to allopatric speciation.
nakedape might as well be ignored. Just look at his history. Someone who is an anti-fundamentalist-creationist-Christian that somehow thinks he is an atheist and doesn't know the difference. Resorts to name calling to anyone who doesn't agree with him,he knows hes 'righter' than you, has cartoons as his favorites and uploads, he's not worth bothering with. Replying to him makes him feel important.
nakedape might as well be ignored. Just look at his history. Someone who is an anti-fundamentalist-creationist-Christian that somehow thinks he is an atheist and doesn't know the difference. Resorts to name calling to anyone who doesn't agree with him,he knows hes 'righter' than you, has cartoons as his favorites and uploads, he's not worth bothering with. Replying to him makes him feel important.
@TheTrashytramp I totally agree with you. I mean scroll down to see the discussion I had with him which ended up with him resorting to name calling as I was kinda expecting. But he is not alone, there are many more Darwinists/atheists trolls on the net that use every chance they get to display their bigotry by attacking any sort of religious or metaphysical belief or any other opinion that just happened to slightly disagree with them.
Great message, let's not use science let's just ask four year olds! Brilliant!
Maybe if all the four year olds got together thay could come up with a unified field theory or perhaps invent time travel or teleportation! We have a vast as yet untapped resource in this country that we need to exploit! Get on it mums and dads!
Actually his understand is wrong. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. We and the chimps evolved from a common ancestor. Chimps and Humans are cousins. Not parent child relationship...
Creationists who can appreciate science might want to watch this youtube video v=N1y8LTseEH4
@estranged597 We know that men and monkeys supposedly came from a common ancestor as per Darwinists claims. Aside from a mix of human and ape skulls rearranged in a totally hypothetical & subjective manner, what other indisputable evidence is there to show that such a transition occured? On the other hand there is indisputable historic evidence that shows that humans are much older than what is assumed by the Darwinian theory.
@ShogunV : I dont quite get what is it that makes evolution less convincing to you ? As evidence for evolution is all around us. Darwin's idea of evolution by natural selection has been studied in detail today and you have the what is called the universal genetic code...
Eg. Quoting from wiki...
"Genetic Code (the "translation table" between DNA and amino acids) is the same for almost every organism, meaning that a piece of DNA in a bacterium codes for the same amino acid as in a human cell"
@estranged597 First, I appreciate you replying with a more moderate tone compared to the rest of the comments made in here by amateurs that only display bigotry.
Second, please let us refrain from making gross & generalized overstatements by simply claiming that evolution is a universal truth. I agree the theory seems very convincing at appearance, but with careful scrutiny and little skepticism a different picture appears showing many flaws with its basic premises.
@estranged597 Is the universal code supposed to establish the case for common ancestry? you realize that it is a big theoretical claim with no solid basis. Molecular similarities among living things are no surprise for even someone who supports intelligent design theory, after all we all live in the same earth, share the same environment, & consume the same molecules. The case can also be argued in favor of common design for a common planet. The idea of common ancestry does not rule out design.
@estranged597 It is also strange that someone meddles with codes of information to use them in favor of the idea of undirected & unintelligent processes, when all intuition & experience implore us that information only comes from intelligence. But the Darwinian theory requires rejection of intuition & experience in favor of blind dedication to strictly materialistic philosophy that forbids alternative explanations. The existence of information weighs the evidence in favor of design not chance.
DNA is the final nail in the coffin for those who still reject evolutionary theory, everything we know about DNA screams out common ancestry, there's just no other explanation for all the facts, none.
DNA is just another organic molecule, all be it a very interesting one, it is still just chemistry, it's not a code in the way you are using the term.
@nakedapedude Everything we know about DNA actually screams out information. And everything we know about complex molecular machines in the cell scream out design. Ancestry is a Darwinian interpretation of the facts, which even if it was true, it still does not rule out design. And like I already said, similarities can be equally argued in favor of common design for living beings that share the same planet, same environemnt, and consume the same molecules.
@nakedapedude DNA information is not just a small aspect, it is the hallmark of living cells & the most complex information storing code in the universe as scientists admit. Yet still some people claim that it is not intelligent information just because they adhere to strictly materialistic claims even though they cannot begin to explain the details regarding the origin of DNA info via Darwinian means, while intuition, experience & logic say that information ONLY comes from intelligence. PERIOD.
The symbols we assign the molecules in dna are a code but not the molecule itself. The fact that you don't understand this speaks volumes as to why you reject evolutionary theory, you just don't understand it.
DNA isn't a code, you're question begging when you claim it is, code, by definition, is produced by intelligent designers.
"they cannot begin to explain the details regarding the origin of DNA"
Absolute nonsense, we know a huge amount about how DNA forms and evolves.
@nakedapedude It is not creationists who came up with the term "code" to describe the DNA, it was scientists. Like I said, information is the hallmark of the cell & it is inescapable fact. The only reason why you reject the word "code" is because you disagree with its implications.
Regardless of what symbols we use, a set of instructions that act as the blueprint to build a highly specific & complex molecular machine can only be described as information code.
You don't know what a code is and you're question begging. You're also quite obviously getting confused because humans assign letters A,G,C & T to represent molecules in the dna chain. When we write out a representation of the DNA in a genome we write it out with letters, the letters stand for the molecules, the letters are the code not the actual dna itself.
dna does contain information but that fact doesn't necessitate the existence of some magical designer who put the information there.
@nakedapedude It never seizes to amuse me how Darwinists misrepresent opposing arguments & attack strawman versions of them. You actually think im confusing letters with the molecule itself? It doesn't matter if we call it ACGT or PRXN or whatever we like, information is information. Any set of instruction that is transcribed then translated through complex pathways to build highly sophisticated & specialized molecular machines, can only be described as code, regardless of how it's represented.
@nakedapedude So stop misrepresenting my argument and let's get the facts straight. Scientists discovered that DNA acts just like any other information code created by intelligence, so they started working with it as a code and assigning letters to it. The only problem is those who disguise their materialistic philosophy which they blindly follow behind science. Every thing you told me so far is not factual but rather subjective & counterintuitive materialistic interpretation of DNA.
@nakedapedude And you also skipped some arguments. let me repeat my question regarding your claim that Darwinists can explain origin & evolution of DNA:
Are you telling me that there is a detailed & quantitative explanation for how the DNA information originated via undirected and unintelligent Darwinian mechanism without leaving any doubt about the issue? If not then on what basis are you basing the claim that DNA information is not intelligence?
@nakedapedude "dna does contain information but that fact doesn't necessitate the existence of some magical designer who put the information there"
That is like saying the movements of a robotic machine can be explained in terms of electricity & some physics. Therefore there is no need to claim there is an engineer who programmed the information code to run it.
The DNA is a real code, and information code has only one implication regardless of how you use the term: and that is intelligence.
You're arguing from incredulity and ignorance and your position is just another argument from design and complexity i.e. "it's too complex, it appears designed, therefore god did it with magic" and that has always been unconvincing.
We know how dna works, we know how information in dna increases in complexity, we have a very good naturalistic explanation for it and there is therefore no need to posit undetectable magical designers, "god did it" is a non answer.
@nakedapedude "You're arguing from incredulity and ignorance"
It is typical for any one who dares commit the intellectual sin of criticizing Darwinism to be labelled as ignorant, & it doesn't surprise me that you would resort to the same derogatory slander.
Arguing for information = intelligence is a positive evidence based on intuition, logic, and repeated observations from experience. So how is it more ignorant than a counterintuitive claim that blindly follows materialistic philosophy?
You're question begging, you're claiming that dna is something that is created by a designer (a code) therefore it is created by a designer, it's nonsense and the worst kind of logical fallacy supported only by another fallacious argument from analogy.
As I have already stated we don't need to come up with non answers like "an undetecable magic being did it" to explain dna, we know how information in dna changes and increases, these are questions that already have answers.
@nakedapedude Well if you are brave enough to display some intellectual honesty and admit that you only follow a strictly materialistic philosophy about origins and intolerant to alternative explanations, then I would say "good for you" and leave it here. Because there is no point in arguing such a typical Darwinian/materialistic stubbornness.
@nakedapedude I also like to add that Dean Kenyon is now a firm supporter of Intelligent Design theory.
So here is an elegant example of a Darwinist who decided to be open minded and ended up rebuking his own theory regarding materialistic/Darwinian account of the origin of first cell & DNA info. And consequently concluding that Design is the most logical explanation.
So should we also accuse such an intellectually honest scientist of ignorance or religious fundamentalism?
@nakedapedude It is also ironic to criticize "God did it" when you blindly repeat "evolution did it". You have yet to answer my question that you deliberately ignored:
Where is the detailed & quantitative account for the origin of DNA info via blind & undirected Darwinian mechanisms? When evolutionary explanations for a highly complex & specified molecular machine are totally lacking, it is utter subjectivity to claim "evolution did it" when details of the HOW part of the question are missing.
The explanation for the origin of dna? It's called chemistry.
Evolutionary theory explains the complexity of dna perfectly adequately, it's a molecule that replicates and is subject to mutation when replicating, advantageous changes are selected for, deleterious changes are not. It's a lot simpler than you think.
Organisms are just containers for the successful propagation of dna.
Again, your "god did it" answer is a non answer and unsupported by evidence.
@nakedapedude "Evolutionary theory explains the complexity of dna perfectly adequately"
The logical fallacy here is that explaining how something works naturally should mean there is no designer, which is absolutely absurd. Anyone with basic knowledge in cell biology knows how DNA works, be it evolutionist or not. But the method of operation is one thing, and the origin of the system is another.
Btw, I'm still waiting for that detailed Darwinian explanations for origin of DNA info.
This gotta be the most "detailed" & "eloquent" "scientific" answer I ever seen in my life. So this is your replacement for "God did it": chemistry did it, evolution did it, magical & creative mutations did it. More & more empty claims that do not even bother or dare to explain the details or evidence of the HOW part of the question. And then they still say that evolution explains everything.
All you've shown so far is skilled dodging of serous questions.
@ShogunV Let me get this straight... you compare religion and science, saying science does not give enough "details or evidence of the HOW part" so you side with religion? HAH don't religion have absolutely no details and evidence at all? Isn't it all just something someone said, similarly to how the fiction writer created the religion scientology? Science isn't driven by "ABG" it's driven by "AWE" (Anything with evidence) lol.
@Flows234 No you did not get it straight, you got it totally confused. I didn’t compare religion & science, nor did I say science doesn’t give details. I said Darwinian materialism (which is parasitic to science) has no details & no adequate explanation for a single complex organ or molecular machine, nor the origin of DNA. I did not say there is no scientific explanation; I said there is no materialistic explanation from those entrenched in materialistic ideology.
@ShogunV There are evidence on how organs have evolved though. By comparing species, you can see the changes in limbs, organs Fishes that live in darkness, have poor senses in their eyes compare to other species. Science provides a basis for understanding more about the species. I'm not sure if your a religious nut, but seeing how religion does not provide ANY information on origin of DNA or how a flagella evolved, then why should we give any credence to what religion says?
@Flows234 Comparing the similarities in different species is not evidence for Darwinian evolution. Even I can put several organs in a series & claim to present evidence for evolution. But the morphing of these organs that we can picture in our heads by looking at the series is not a casual evidence for Darwinian evolution in & of itself. It’s only superficial proof. It takes more than simply drawing an imaginary line to connect different fossils/species coupled with biased interpretation.
@ShogunV Oh I also realized your arguments are so flawed... You need to stop reading those religious websites.. it's not putting organs together and claiming as is for evidence. 1) comparative anatomy how the anatomical signs of descent with modification. look at the the bone structure of a human, a cat, a whale, and bat, and then tell me what you think? 2) comparative embryology - in early development you can see pharyngeal pouches develop in gills also in human throats
@ShogunV 3) paleontologists also found whales's flippers and small bones could be remants of ancestral hind legs and feet. look at their bone structure and tell me why it's like that? now don't tell me you can just put any organs together and automatically say it's evolution - when you also say "real evidence" shows cambrian explosion, your clearly mistaken? why would you ignore evidence that is currently provided now? there's obvious evidence for natural selection
@Flows234 Real evidence would be proving that mutations do have such a creative power to produce new body plan novelties as seen in the Cambrian explosion. If any imaginary line is drawn to connect different species is to have any credibility we need proof from population genetics calculations based on real life mutation rates & coefficients of selection. A quantifiable account is needed not just simply hand-waving & speculative just so stories.
There's plenty of evidence.... look at natural selection?? wtf? you can compare species because you see limbs that are no longer in use for species, but they still have those parts.. and yes there is evidence showing how evolution took place. I can recall an article about a lizard losing it legs and turning more into a snake. if you want sources i can probably cite them. you said "from intuition, logic and experience" this is false.. explain? because my intuition logic and experience does not t
@Flows234 Deterioration of function is irrelevant to the question of its origin. Some fishes have no eyes while living in darkness, but losing an eye is no proof that the eye originally evolved via Darwinian mechanisms. Such extrapolation is false. Where is the proof for gradual evolution of eyes? The oldest known eye is probably the complex trilobite eye which appeared abruptly along with many other body plan novelties in the Cambrian without showing any Precambrian precursors.
@ShogunV and deterioration is not irrelevant to question of it's origin. if you look at things now, you can get an idea how things worked in the past..biology doesn't just change it's method.. your saying we can't look at the thigns now to determine the past.. of course you can.. it's not like life will change it's method of evolution. your saying natural selection may be obsolete.. ri
@Flows234 So the issue is about proving the adequacy of RM + NS in producing body plan novelties which has yet to be proven, until then all the imaginary lines connecting different species are next to meaningless speculations. It is also about proving that DNA information can arise via purely natural processes to prove the counter-intuitive materialistic claim that a complex information code does not need intelligence, while we know from intuition, logic & experience that this is false.
@ShogunV does not tell me this. it sounds liek someone with religion would say. I don't give a fuck about darwinism. Darwin could be a retarded frog fish for all I care, I just look at the current evidence there is. Darwin could be completely wrong, but when I talk about religion, I'm looking for an answer as to why people blindly accept it. I know its partly due to brainwashing from a early age, but shit people grow up and use logic.
@ShogunV Not sure what religion says about how life was formed, but I believe there's stories like a god making people from mud and stuff from native american religion and in christianity says god created the word in 7 days. Not sure what zeus had to say about it or the other gods, but they haven't really gave me much evidence to base my beliefs in.
@Flows234 By the way, you do not give any further credibility to Darwinism by attacking religion. It is a common tactic for Darwinists to label the opposite side as “religious” to make them seem less scientific. By doing so they are diverting the attentions away from the weaknesses of their side. Whatever beef you have with religion is irrelevant & is not the issue at hand here.
@ShogunV When I was a kid, I was basically using the socrate method and i was questioning myself about religion. If there is a god, then y the hell would it send a people to earth just to confuse them? if it's human nature to exploit these beliefs to control people, why did he send people to earth? if you MUST believe in god to get into heaven, then what about people who live in a country that never even heard of it? do they automatically goto hell? if u read any scriptures, u realize its bs
@ShogunV I don't see how I'm diverting attention to the "weakness of their side" please elucidate. and religion is definetely relevant, because your arguing for "creationism" or "intelligent design" in other words someone who purposely created the world, in othe r words some fake guy you made up living in the sky creating stuff for you to worship
@Flows234 You’re obviously a typical “Dawkins-style” atheist who views a simple debate about the adequacy of evolution as a full scale war between science and religion. Ironically, you are invoking more religious/metaphysical issues to discuss than I am, thinking that attacking religion would make you look smart & scientific. If you are scientific let as talk about stuff we know (evidence for/against Darwinism), not stuff we cannot comprehend (God’s purpose/metaphysics).
@Flows234 You are not presenting anything new, you’re deriving evidence for evolution basically based on homology as most Darwinists do, then you conclude that evolution is a FACT and whoever dares to allow himself the freedom of inquiry & question the adequacy of this evidence is a religious fundamentalist!! Such religion-hating amateur Darwinists cannot comprehend that there are others who just don’t share their materialistic worldview.
You just fail to realise that a demonstration of homology & progression of forms is not, in & of itself, a casual explanation for the claimed transition. It is imperative to demonstrate the “creative” power of mutations before such extrapolations are valid. It is also important to have some form of calculations of pop dynamics. Otherwise you’re left with speculation only, which can only be accepted if a demonstration is made to prove that the speculated mechanism can do what it’s claimed for.
@Flows234 Numbers matter. Ask yourself honestly: How many billions of trial & error did evolution take to produce something like the complex trilobite eye that appeared abruptly more than 500 mya? Do we see atleast 3, 4, or 5 of these billions of intermediate steps in Precambrian rocks to prove an evolutionary origin for the eye, or for any other Cambrian body plan novelty? Or are you content with saying “evolution did it” without asking How? Talk about blind belief!!
@Flows234 Again, a lizard losing legs might be proof for the effect of natural selection which is not controversial. But the process that produced a loss of function cannot be extrapolated to explain the origin of the function from the start. This would require adequate proof for a hypothetical mutating process capable of producing new body functions.
@Flows234 And yes, we know that the origin of information is intelligence based on intuition, logic, & repeated observations from experience. We also know that the origin of highly specific functional proteins by random mutations is highly unlikely. It is not my fault that you decided to take a step against intuition & logic without even proving how meaningful functional information as in DNA can arise without need for intelligence, or how purely random mutations yield new functional proteins.
@Flows234 And suppose homology is infallible proof, is it proof for unguided materialistic evolution, or guided theistic evolution? Or semi-guided as some might believe. Keep in mind that many evolutionists are theists who see no conflict b/w evolution & God. What makes you think you can make a stick out of evolution for beating religion? You’re just punching your way through a mesh of competing ideas with whatever version that suits your worldview; thinking that you know best.
@ShogunV I've had experiences where I've seen deceased family members as a ghost, when I was a child. I've had numerous experiences with the paranormal. I know science can not validate these experiences now, but it shows that there is more out there than we know. However, I see religion as a tool to control the people. People blindly follow their teaching without evidence. There is NO evidence for it at all, but you people insist in aruging by pointing out the flaws in science.
Homochirality is the stake through the heart for evolution..life by time and chance impossible..biochemical chemistry has reached a dead end paradox!!!..people think simple chemicals could some how form life, they dont know real chemistry..they would rather believe in some unknown chemistry than an intelligence..this is why Miller failed to make life in a test tube and no building blocks were ever made or assembled..right and left handed amino acids together are toxic to life..
@5tonyvvvv miller did not include sulfur, they just did a study where the addition of sulfur creates an even more variety of amino acids, bringing us closer to the truth. Remember, biochemistry has only been in existence in the last 50 years, meanwhile Islam has 1500 years of the same non-sense.
@superoriginalname LOL..another dummy that knows nothing about biochemistry, so what!, you could have the amino acids you want, they would never organize them selves into digital code, information and form one single protein!!
@superoriginalname Atheists are so stubborn, they think this RNA research could happen on a primordial earth..HAHAHA
Synthesizing machines trained chemists controlling every step of the experiment, along with activated bases,which were not made from scratch.and controlled TEMPERATURES!!!! would all be found on a primordial earth???
@superoriginalname "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction.Intelligence created life not time and chance!!
@ColdVolcano22
Im not trying to start a debate you seem very smart did you know Humans Could get heart transplants from a pig and there blood I believe is similar to ours so did pigs come from humans Just saying
May Peace Be Upon You
youngn773 3 days ago
@ColdVolcano22 this is all unproven though. have we found a monkey that looks similar to a human ? no. we have no DNA proof. monkey DNA has one less chroma-zone than human. and if we were descended from apes we as their descendants even though we look different should be able to mate with them but the truth is we cant if we were related our genetic pool would be compatible but it isn't. i could go on and on for hours but im out of space
atif07an08 2 months ago
@ColdVolcano22 ok proof why did these monkeys die out?
atif07an08 2 months ago
@ColdVolcano22 for sure.. and I agree.. and yes I have...
daNDayati 3 months ago
monkeys never turn to any other form, what's with this evolution brain. humans are turning to the ways of monkeys. the believers of evolution, please dont leave your brothers & sisters in the jungle without the civilisation that you enjoy. They sure miss you guys a lot..... lol
funkseoul 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@funkseoul
Just because you don't understand does not mean you need a god.
StopSpamming1 3 months ago
what a horrible person... lies with ease, conviction .
daNDayati 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@daNDayati, how is it lies? Evolution has not been proven, it will never ever be proven and that is why we say theory of evolution and it will forever remain a theory. if we came from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys? I have not seen a single book, that says facts of evolution, all the books I have seen, says theory of evolution, hope that answers the question.
Ronaldo93680 3 months ago
this is a deceitful presentation... estes is a dealer in hokum playing with a gullible crowd that needs to hear validation of where science and evolution "fails" and islam handily fills in the blanks.. no wonder muslims only account for less that 1% of scientific research..
daNDayati 4 months ago
Comment removed
daNDayati 4 months ago
Evolution "Lacks any real, testable evidence"?
What century did he grow up in?
Why doesn't he rather learn and then teach Muslims not to embarrass themselves with the ignorant and stupid monkey questions?
StopSpamming1 4 months ago in playlist ISLAM - Sheykh Yusuf Estes
@StopSpamming1, if we came from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys? I have not seen a single book, that says facts of evolution, all the books I have seen, says theory of evolution.
Ronaldo93680 3 months ago
@Ronaldo93680
We, humans, "came from" monkeys? What does that mean?
Does a motorbike "come from" a car?
All books say "Theory of Gravity" And "Germ-Theory" and "Theory of Music". And. And. And.
But if your prefer to listen to lies, then go ahead, ignore the truth. Maybe it's easier and better for you.
StopSpamming1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StopSpamming1, Evolution has not been proved, it will never ever be proved, if it had been proved, we would have been saying fact of evolution, you still did not answer my question, if humans came from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?
Ronaldo93680 3 months ago
Islam poisons the rational mind.
The video and the reactions from Muslims demonstrate this.
They are not capable to apply methods of truth seeking to Islam the same way it is applied to everything else.
killer4hire 5 months ago
mate, get the actual facts and real evidence in scienceislam com
10186dollar 5 months ago
what does the evidence say, not "common sense"?
averick11 6 months ago
No it doesn't.... Sigh.
rlinfinity 8 months ago
Evolution belongs in Pokemon
MrDiem2 8 months ago
This guy has no idea what he's talking about...if a caterpillar can change to a butterfly in days then monkeys can change to humans in millions of years...
RaoPaoer 8 months ago
@RaoPaoer That has nothing to do with evolution, it's like saying a Human fetus changes to a baby...
MrDiem2 8 months ago
@MrDiem2 Well its demonstrating the fact that things can change into things we don't expect
RaoPaoer 8 months ago
@RaoPaoer but whats the evidence Mr. scientist?
speedss60 6 months ago
I don't understand the stupid islam. Quran says drinking wine is prohibited but in paradise you will have rivers of wine and houris. So as per quran you have to live a pious life on earth but you will allowed to commit any sin in paradise. WHAT A STUPID RELIGION AND STUPID BOOK.
hindu4india 8 months ago
@hindu4india That wine will be sinless, not intoxicating, and all this can be a metaphore.
IvanKolosnik 8 months ago
to be fair not all atheists and agnostics believe in evolution, there are other theories too
emperordeebo 9 months ago
@emperordeebo like?
mikkars250 8 months ago
Unless religion can rationalise evolution within their beliefs, they are lost. I am sure it can be done, this man makes such good arguments but his arguments agains evolution are very weak at best. Why are there still monkeys? what a silly question so easy to answer. When I was four, evolution made perfect sense to me, creation sounded a bit sus. Adam was the first man? can't we just say God created him as a genetic quirk that boosted us above other primates and he was the first of our kind?
mikkars250 9 months ago
@mikkars250 OK, so why are there still monkeys?
IvanKolosnik 8 months ago
@IvanKolosnik evolution is a scientific theory, just use google and look up a diagram of an evolutionary tree and it will explain it for you.
mikkars250 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mikkars250 I read it all in the 7th grade 25 years ago - it's all just a hypothesis and for those charts and pictures - I can draw them myslef "proofing" evolution of trees into fish.
Still, where are those fossils/remnants of TRANSITIVE forms from ape to man, from fish to cat?
why are there still monkeys, after all? his "scientific theory" does not explain it at all, that's the problem.
IvanKolosnik 8 months ago
Monkeyian, Thundercats.....
elazar79 10 months ago
evolutionists love pokemon way too much.
MrBabibubo 10 months ago
i can see that you're good at avoiding what i have to say and quick to criticize. you're the laughing stock of the Islamic community, perhaps Christianity too. so how does it feel?
i'll admit that science was never my forte, so perhaps you could talk logic and sensibly. please give me your source of evidence regarding ''tiktaalik''.
MrBabibubo 10 months ago
@MrBabibubo "Today the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis."
— Pope John Paul II
"Creationism is the fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning"
— Lord Carey, Archbishop of Canterbury
you see? even christians can see through the veil of religious intransigence.
volound 10 months ago
@volound lol please be aware that Muslims ≠ Christians
MrBabibubo 10 months ago
@MrBabibubo my argument had that as a premise, so why you would remind me... i have no idea.
i suggest you read your comment then read mine, slowly.
volound 10 months ago
Comment removed
volound 10 months ago
@volound that's like me asking you what riba' is, or what musharakah is and if you name me your scientists who deal with riba'. lol. definitely Google has the answer to all your questions and mine. astavisms is definitely some scientific word to prove the theory of evolution.
like i said, talk logically and sensibly, not scientifically. but i still can't help but wonder what we're gonna ''evolve'' into.
do you believe in dinosaurs, may i ask? if yes, how did dinosaurs come about?
MrBabibubo 10 months ago
@MrBabibubo "talk logically and sensibly, not scientifically"
in other words, dont bother to talk about what can be measured and demonstrated, just use meaningless rhetoric and fancy words that dont get anywhere.
ill answer your question about dinosaurs after you explain how the theory managed to predict the existence of the tiktaalik despite it being wrong.
im not letting you evade anything. deal with the issue "sensibly" and answer my question.
volound 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrBabibubo source of evidence for what? its all open source. try using wikipedia. use google. or the site of a body that reviews and publishes scientific journals.
you have the knowledge of the entire world at your finger tips. its not hard.
im curious. what do you think palaeontology is? or phyloneny is? can you name any muslims that are palaeontologists, or phylogenists?
what do you think atavisms are?
volound 10 months ago
moron doesnt understand evolution, at all.
volound 10 months ago
@volound Ok then smart ass, explain your so called ''evolution.'' How are humans created, ohh sorry i mean ''Evolved'' ??
MrBOXA01 10 months ago
@MrBOXA01 planets which contain chemicals that naturally form molecular bonds do so, in our case autocatalytic feedback loops i.e. simple replicators which proceeded to fill the oceans of early earth eventually increasing in sophistication forming lipid membranes around bubbles which protect the RNA and eventually DNA core of early single celled organisms, which evolved the capacity to live in colonies, becoming simple multi-cellular organisms like sponges..
volound 10 months ago
@MrBOXA01 , which became intermediates like polyps which became early invertebrates which branched into vertebrates some of which became fish then amphibians one of which is famously the first to crawl onto dry land where amphibians branched off into reptiles which branched into both birds and mammals some of which survived the extinction event..
volound 10 months ago
@MrBOXA01 that killed the dinosaurs became arboreal primates later descended and learned to walk upright in order to carry food/tools/young and of course these proto humans eventually became us.
this is what they teach at harvard, MIT, yale, oxford and cambridge. why do you think that is?
volound 10 months ago
@volound Im sorry but i did not understand a word you said ! Basically your saying planets that contain chemicals magically ''evolved'' us humans ? Im sorry brother, but that makes no sense ! where did the planets come from ? where did this ''chemical'' itself come from ? see you make no sense. By the way, evolution is NOT a fact. Evolution is the most illogical, irrational concept i have ever heard in my life !
MrBOXA01 10 months ago
@MrBOXA01 "Im sorry but i did not understand a word you said"
maybe thats the problem. open a science book.
"where did the planets come from ?"
planets are formed from the accretion disk that formed the star they orbit. we observe this all the time. this was how the earth came into being.
open a science book.
"Evolution is the most illogical, irrational concept i have ever heard in my life !"
you clearly dont understand evolution at all. your ignorance is the problem.
im done here.
volound 10 months ago
@volound so we ''evolved'' from monkeys. what are we gonna evolve to next? robots?
MrBabibubo 10 months ago
@MrBabibubo you dont know what evolved means, and you dont know what monkeys are. humans and monkeys are primates, humans share a common ancestor with monkeys, and humans evolved from apes.
robots? what?do you know what the word "robot" means?
volound 10 months ago
@volound nope not answering the question there. what are humans gonna evolve to?
"humans and monkey are primates"
let's see. cheetahs and lions are cats. so did the cheetah evolved from lion or did the lion evolve from the cheetah?
MrBabibubo 10 months ago
@MrBabibubo "nope not answering the question there. what are humans gonna evolve to?"
i cant remember telling you that humans were going to evolve into something.
cheetahs and lions share a very recent common ancestor. asking if one evolved from the other is as stupid as asking "did your brother give birth to you, or did you give birth to your brother". as you can see, to anyone who understands evolution, its clear youre being silly.
youre just embarrassing yourself. go on wikipedia and read.
volound 10 months ago
@volound so in other words, you're trying to say that we're not gonna evolve anymore? and why not?
im sorry, but im just mirroring how stupid your statement was. that "humans and monkeys are primates, humans share a common ancestor with monkeys, and humans evolved from apes." by giving you the example of cats. as you can see, to anyone who believes Allah created Adam, it's clear you're being silly.
i can tell you can't answer my questions. you know yourself YOUR theory doesn't make sense.
MrBabibubo 10 months ago
@MrBabibubo because allelle frequencies change due to natural selection. that is, environmental pressures that select which individuals survive and which dont.
todays societies alleviate this selection process as individuals can survive regardless of their genetic makeup. there are no environmental pressures that cause change, or evolution.
volound 10 months ago
@MrBabibubo "as you can see, to anyone who believes Allah created Adam, it's clear you're being silly."
i dont doubt that. people are free to believe what they want. but people who believe in that particular creation myth have do deal with the fact that all the evidence goes against them. for example, people that believe in adam and eve have no explanation for atavisms, you probably dont even know what they are. youre the laughing stock of the scientific community, how does it feel?
volound 10 months ago
@MrBabibubo If evolution is false like you say, it should have no predictive value. why then, have scientists been able to use evolution to extrapolate and make accurate scientific predictions?
e.g. the 2004 discovery of an intermediate link between fish and tetrapod (called the tiktaalik)
this “missing link” was worked out to have lived around 375 million years ago BEFORE it was found. After searching for 4 years, it was found within rocks of this specific age.
explain please.
volound 10 months ago
I think this evolutionary expert also wonders why there are no crocoducks LOLl! :D
killer4hire 10 months ago
@killer4hire you should see where i managed to fit a banana last night.
volound 10 months ago
Ur idiots...Explain how if you look how the further you go up the great apes specie, DNA sequencing also increases between man and primate, and eventually culminates with chimpanzees? Explain how we share up to 4% DNA with Neanderthals? Anyways you guys don`t believe in facts.
superoriginalname 10 months ago
@superoriginalname - "Mice and men share about 97.5 per cent of their working DNA, just one per cent less than chimps and humans. The new estimate is based on the comparison of mouse chromosome 16 with human DNA. Previous estimates had suggested mouse-human differences as high as 15 per cent." So we came from mouse too right??? How stupid men like you can be!!! Go climb the trees monkey!!! There is no facts about evolution!!!
geokonti 10 months ago
@geokonti humans and mice share a common ancestor with mice that is much more recent than the ancestor with chimps. this is why the genome has diverged.
humans and bananas also share a common ancestor, that can be traced back to when flora and fauna diverged into separate phylogenetic trees.
do yourself and your religion a credit, educate yourself. if i was muhammad i would be ashamed of the ignorance of my adherents. its the 21st century, earn the right to live in it.
volound 10 months ago
@volound - so you're telling me we came from some flower, tree or something similar??? Wow I didn't know that "scientists" who believe these things and normal people like you are so primitive! Not even caveman made such stupid assumptions!!! Take care!
geokonti 10 months ago
@geokonti name a credible biologist who rejects evolution. name a single muslim phylogenist.
volound 10 months ago
And He (Allah/God) has created you in different stages and different forms ... And Allah has caused you to develop as a good growth from the earth. [Qur'an 71:14,17] So what does this mean?
firecraxker 10 months ago
@firecraxker are you trying to pretend that describes evolution? because thats a horrible description. unless you think the qur'an is extremely vague, that verse is not describing any evolutionary process.
volound 10 months ago
@volound I'm not saying that, I'm asking what it means. Try not to be rude, hmm?
firecraxker 10 months ago
talkorigins [dot] org
the2ndgenes1s 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MiddleEast ALWAYS at war! Mohammad violent SINFUL Murderer! Jesus Healed/Blessed/ Peace/Salvation/GOD! All MUSLIMS who converted to Christianity ARE HAPPY/FREE OF ABUSE/MISERY! Your leaders are killing you! All Christians LOVE YOU! PLEASE accept JESUS CHRIST as your SAVIOR! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! PLEASE REBEL/ACCEPT JESUS! Be free of this horror! Visit wlix radio.com
tigersforchrist 11 months ago
that dudes beard is beast
TheAwesomekman 1 year ago 6
@TheAwesomekman It evolved from a mouse.
mikkars250 8 months ago
This guy has no idea what he is talking about. Evolutionary theory doesnt state that humans evolved from monkeys. That is a common misconception.
As for missing links, there are plenty of intermediate skeletons found. And there is plenty of evidence for evolution. Dont just take my word for it, read about it. There is plenty of material out there.
He should do some research on evolution. He knows nothing about it, Im afraid.
nethken 1 year ago
@nethken So what did humans evolved from then?
More2share 1 year ago
@nethken
Yup these Skeleton came from the same age :)
Bultlaker 1 year ago
in Quran, there's one or several chapters mention about animals originated from water. man, from a despicable water(sperm) and etc... peace.
nekozune 1 year ago
oh btw, I noticed how you always say "darwinism tactic", meaning you must obviously u debate a lot of people about religion, and the arguments you use are blatantly found in religious website that argue against it. your trying to argue with me why darwinism could be false, yet avoiding your own belief about religion. I'm questioning you, why do you believe in something that has absolutely no proof at all? look how religious fucks ppl up this probably how fools acted back then watch?v=5ZmM90cFc-I
Flows234 1 year ago
@Flows234 Judging from your last post, it is clear that you are a typical narrow-minded atheist with ridiculous hatred to religion derived from personal bias and a failed religious experience. If you think attacking religion makes you look smart & educated that is utter stupidity. You’re not debating for better scientific understanding, you’re just doing it to score some “easy wins” against ignorant fundamentalists.
ShogunV 1 year ago
@ShogunV First off, I don't know what is a "'Darwins-style' atheist who views simple debate
about adequacy of evolution as full scale war between science and religion" Let's get this very
clear, okay? I don't care about Darwinism and he could be completely wrong about evolution, okay?
But nothing that science found contradicts the theory of evolution, whether it be fossils,
limbs, study of biology, or genetics . If you look at chiampzees and monkeys, you see that they have
24 chromosomes,
Flows234 1 year ago
@ShogunV we can see how bacteria are changing. MRSA is a perfect example of how species change their genetics
by adapating to eir environment. They have mutations where they become immune to anti-bacterials,
like penicillin, (i can cite sources showing this) THIS SHOWS THAT MUTATIONS DOES CHANGE OUR SPECIES
AND SPECIES ADAPT TO ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE IT IS A NECESSSITY TO SURVIVE. Just like how the Finch bird's
beaks changed to their size in order to eat in an island within just a few years
Flows234 1 year ago
@ShogunV Let me end my point with this. I don't believe Darwin got it right and his theory will probably to overtaken by another one. I definitely don't see religion with any validly, and I believe "creationist" are clinging on to their last threads by debating science by attacking their flaws. In time, we'll find more proof about how the world was really created. In physics, we have the great edward witten, stephen hawkings, researching M-Theory. Even hawking believes this may disprove god.
Flows234 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Homochirality is the stake through the heart for evolution..life by time and chance impossible..biochemical chemistry has reached a dead end paradox!!!..people think simple chemicals could some how form life, they dont know real chemistry..they would rather believe in some unknown chemistry than an intelligence..this is why Miller failed to make life in a test tube and no building blocks were ever made or assembled..right and left handed amino acids together are toxic to life..
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
Comment removed
ShogunV 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Flows234 By attacking someone just for simply holding an opposing belief that you dislike (& calling them ignorant & fools), you are displaying bigotry not science. People like you are parasites to science.
It is a waste of time debating such narrow-mindedness. I really should not be posting anything again since all you gonna do is reply out of typical atheist pride just so you have the last word to say. So goodbye
ShogunV 1 year ago
Why do we still have monkeys?
We didn't evolve from monkeys but from an ancestor we have in common with modern monkeys.
But even if we did the argument makes no sense.
Dogs came from wolves but there are still wolves. Same for many other species.
killer4hire 1 year ago
@killer4hire If your comments are serious, then you have no idea about evolution; all your questions clearly demonstrate this. If you doubt evolution you can have your DNA sent to National Geographic Project (can't remember the exact name). As predicted by Darwin, before any fossil evidence and way before DNA was even contemplated, we all came from East Africa. No 'if', no 'buts', we DID. Over 100,000 have taken part (incl. me); now guess where each and every one is traced back to. Rgs.
7x34hj 10 months ago
@7x34hj
You misunderstood me. I was not attacking evolution. I was just demonstrating that evolution can occur without the parent species disappearing. Like for example due to allopatric speciation.
killer4hire 10 months ago
@killer4hire Then humble apologies are yours. I did wonder, which is why I thought that perhaps you were not 'serious'. Rgds.
7x34hj 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
nakedape might as well be ignored. Just look at his history. Someone who is an anti-fundamentalist-creationist-Christian that somehow thinks he is an atheist and doesn't know the difference. Resorts to name calling to anyone who doesn't agree with him,he knows hes 'righter' than you, has cartoons as his favorites and uploads, he's not worth bothering with. Replying to him makes him feel important.
TheTrashytramp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
nakedape might as well be ignored. Just look at his history. Someone who is an anti-fundamentalist-creationist-Christian that somehow thinks he is an atheist and doesn't know the difference. Resorts to name calling to anyone who doesn't agree with him,he knows hes 'righter' than you, has cartoons as his favorites and uploads, he's not worth bothering with. Replying to him makes him feel important.
TheTrashytramp 1 year ago
@TheTrashytramp I totally agree with you. I mean scroll down to see the discussion I had with him which ended up with him resorting to name calling as I was kinda expecting. But he is not alone, there are many more Darwinists/atheists trolls on the net that use every chance they get to display their bigotry by attacking any sort of religious or metaphysical belief or any other opinion that just happened to slightly disagree with them.
ShogunV 1 year ago
Great message, let's not use science let's just ask four year olds! Brilliant!
Maybe if all the four year olds got together thay could come up with a unified field theory or perhaps invent time travel or teleportation! We have a vast as yet untapped resource in this country that we need to exploit! Get on it mums and dads!
Sigh.
nakedapedude 1 year ago
very intelligent brother ma sha allah...has a great sense of humor too ;)
indigoray89 1 year ago
i gotta he has brilliant sense of humor to go with his brilliant intelligence...ma sha allah...
indigoray89 1 year ago
Actually his understand is wrong. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. We and the chimps evolved from a common ancestor. Chimps and Humans are cousins. Not parent child relationship...
Creationists who can appreciate science might want to watch this youtube video v=N1y8LTseEH4
estranged597 1 year ago
@estranged597 We know that men and monkeys supposedly came from a common ancestor as per Darwinists claims. Aside from a mix of human and ape skulls rearranged in a totally hypothetical & subjective manner, what other indisputable evidence is there to show that such a transition occured? On the other hand there is indisputable historic evidence that shows that humans are much older than what is assumed by the Darwinian theory.
ShogunV 1 year ago
@ShogunV : I dont quite get what is it that makes evolution less convincing to you ? As evidence for evolution is all around us. Darwin's idea of evolution by natural selection has been studied in detail today and you have the what is called the universal genetic code...
Eg. Quoting from wiki...
"Genetic Code (the "translation table" between DNA and amino acids) is the same for almost every organism, meaning that a piece of DNA in a bacterium codes for the same amino acid as in a human cell"
estranged597 1 year ago
@estranged597 First, I appreciate you replying with a more moderate tone compared to the rest of the comments made in here by amateurs that only display bigotry.
Second, please let us refrain from making gross & generalized overstatements by simply claiming that evolution is a universal truth. I agree the theory seems very convincing at appearance, but with careful scrutiny and little skepticism a different picture appears showing many flaws with its basic premises.
ShogunV 1 year ago
@estranged597 Is the universal code supposed to establish the case for common ancestry? you realize that it is a big theoretical claim with no solid basis. Molecular similarities among living things are no surprise for even someone who supports intelligent design theory, after all we all live in the same earth, share the same environment, & consume the same molecules. The case can also be argued in favor of common design for a common planet. The idea of common ancestry does not rule out design.
ShogunV 1 year ago
@estranged597 It is also strange that someone meddles with codes of information to use them in favor of the idea of undirected & unintelligent processes, when all intuition & experience implore us that information only comes from intelligence. But the Darwinian theory requires rejection of intuition & experience in favor of blind dedication to strictly materialistic philosophy that forbids alternative explanations. The existence of information weighs the evidence in favor of design not chance.
ShogunV 1 year ago
@ShogunV
DNA is the final nail in the coffin for those who still reject evolutionary theory, everything we know about DNA screams out common ancestry, there's just no other explanation for all the facts, none.
DNA is just another organic molecule, all be it a very interesting one, it is still just chemistry, it's not a code in the way you are using the term.
nakedapedude 1 year ago
@nakedapedude Everything we know about DNA actually screams out information. And everything we know about complex molecular machines in the cell scream out design. Ancestry is a Darwinian interpretation of the facts, which even if it was true, it still does not rule out design. And like I already said, similarities can be equally argued in favor of common design for living beings that share the same planet, same environemnt, and consume the same molecules.
ShogunV 1 year ago
@nakedapedude DNA information is not just a small aspect, it is the hallmark of living cells & the most complex information storing code in the universe as scientists admit. Yet still some people claim that it is not intelligent information just because they adhere to strictly materialistic claims even though they cannot begin to explain the details regarding the origin of DNA info via Darwinian means, while intuition, experience & logic say that information ONLY comes from intelligence. PERIOD.
ShogunV 1 year ago
@ShogunV
The symbols we assign the molecules in dna are a code but not the molecule itself. The fact that you don't understand this speaks volumes as to why you reject evolutionary theory, you just don't understand it.
DNA isn't a code, you're question begging when you claim it is, code, by definition, is produced by intelligent designers.
"they cannot begin to explain the details regarding the origin of DNA"
Absolute nonsense, we know a huge amount about how DNA forms and evolves.
nakedapedude 1 year ago
@nakedapedude It is not creationists who came up with the term "code" to describe the DNA, it was scientists. Like I said, information is the hallmark of the cell & it is inescapable fact. The only reason why you reject the word "code" is because you disagree with its implications.
Regardless of what symbols we use, a set of instructions that act as the blueprint to build a highly specific & complex molecular machine can only be described as information code.
ShogunV 1 year ago
You don't know what a code is and you're question begging. You're also quite obviously getting confused because humans assign letters A,G,C & T to represent molecules in the dna chain. When we write out a representation of the DNA in a genome we write it out with letters, the letters stand for the molecules, the letters are the code not the actual dna itself.
dna does contain information but that fact doesn't necessitate the existence of some magical designer who put the information there.
nakedapedude 1 year ago
@nakedapedude It never seizes to amuse me how Darwinists misrepresent opposing arguments & attack strawman versions of them. You actually think im confusing letters with the molecule itself? It doesn't matter if we call it ACGT or PRXN or whatever we like, information is information. Any set of instruction that is transcribed then translated through complex pathways to build highly sophisticated & specialized molecular machines, can only be described as code, regardless of how it's represented.
ShogunV 1 year ago
@nakedapedude So stop misrepresenting my argument and let's get the facts straight. Scientists discovered that DNA acts just like any other information code created by intelligence, so they started working with it as a code and assigning letters to it. The only problem is those who disguise their materialistic philosophy which they blindly follow behind science. Every thing you told me so far is not factual but rather subjective & counterintuitive materialistic interpretation of DNA.
ShogunV 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nakedapedude And you also skipped some arguments. let me repeat my question regarding your claim that Darwinists can explain origin & evolution of DNA:
Are you telling me that there is a detailed & quantitative explanation for how the DNA information originated via undirected and unintelligent Darwinian mechanism without leaving any doubt about the issue? If not then on what basis are you basing the claim that DNA information is not intelligence?
ShogunV 1 year ago
@nakedapedude "dna does contain information but that fact doesn't necessitate the existence of some magical designer who put the information there"
That is like saying the movements of a robotic machine can be explained in terms of electricity & some physics. Therefore there is no need to claim there is an engineer who programmed the information code to run it.
The DNA is a real code, and information code has only one implication regardless of how you use the term: and that is intelligence.
ShogunV 1 year ago
@ShogunV
You're arguing from incredulity and ignorance and your position is just another argument from design and complexity i.e. "it's too complex, it appears designed, therefore god did it with magic" and that has always been unconvincing.
We know how dna works, we know how information in dna increases in complexity, we have a very good naturalistic explanation for it and there is therefore no need to posit undetectable magical designers, "god did it" is a non answer.
nakedapedude 1 year ago
@nakedapedude "You're arguing from incredulity and ignorance"
It is typical for any one who dares commit the intellectual sin of criticizing Darwinism to be labelled as ignorant, & it doesn't surprise me that you would resort to the same derogatory slander.
Arguing for information = intelligence is a positive evidence based on intuition, logic, and repeated observations from experience. So how is it more ignorant than a counterintuitive claim that blindly follows materialistic philosophy?
ShogunV 1 year ago
@ShogunV
You're question begging, you're claiming that dna is something that is created by a designer (a code) therefore it is created by a designer, it's nonsense and the worst kind of logical fallacy supported only by another fallacious argument from analogy.
As I have already stated we don't need to come up with non answers like "an undetecable magic being did it" to explain dna, we know how information in dna changes and increases, these are questions that already have answers.
nakedapedude 1 year ago
@nakedapedude Well if you are brave enough to display some intellectual honesty and admit that you only follow a strictly materialistic philosophy about origins and intolerant to alternative explanations, then I would say "good for you" and leave it here. Because there is no point in arguing such a typical Darwinian/materialistic stubbornness.
ShogunV 1 year ago
@nakedapedude I also like to add that Dean Kenyon is now a firm supporter of Intelligent Design theory.
So here is an elegant example of a Darwinist who decided to be open minded and ended up rebuking his own theory regarding materialistic/Darwinian account of the origin of first cell & DNA info. And consequently concluding that Design is the most logical explanation.
So should we also accuse such an intellectually honest scientist of ignorance or religious fundamentalism?
ShogunV 1 year ago
@ShogunV
Dean Kenyon? Really?! That's your ace in the hole?
You just keep trotting out the fallacies don't you, now an argument from authority?
You are aware he's also a young earth creationist aren't you.
I am laughing so much right now.
nakedapedude 1 year ago
@nakedapedude It is also ironic to criticize "God did it" when you blindly repeat "evolution did it". You have yet to answer my question that you deliberately ignored:
Where is the detailed & quantitative account for the origin of DNA info via blind & undirected Darwinian mechanisms? When evolutionary explanations for a highly complex & specified molecular machine are totally lacking, it is utter subjectivity to claim "evolution did it" when details of the HOW part of the question are missing.
ShogunV 1 year ago
@ShogunV
The explanation for the origin of dna? It's called chemistry.
Evolutionary theory explains the complexity of dna perfectly adequately, it's a molecule that replicates and is subject to mutation when replicating, advantageous changes are selected for, deleterious changes are not. It's a lot simpler than you think.
Organisms are just containers for the successful propagation of dna.
Again, your "god did it" answer is a non answer and unsupported by evidence.
nakedapedude 1 year ago
@nakedapedude "Evolutionary theory explains the complexity of dna perfectly adequately"
The logical fallacy here is that explaining how something works naturally should mean there is no designer, which is absolutely absurd. Anyone with basic knowledge in cell biology knows how DNA works, be it evolutionist or not. But the method of operation is one thing, and the origin of the system is another.
Btw, I'm still waiting for that detailed Darwinian explanations for origin of DNA info.
ShogunV 1 year ago
@ShogunV
Chemistry.
nakedapedude 1 year ago
@nakedapedude "Chemistry"
This gotta be the most "detailed" & "eloquent" "scientific" answer I ever seen in my life. So this is your replacement for "God did it": chemistry did it, evolution did it, magical & creative mutations did it. More & more empty claims that do not even bother or dare to explain the details or evidence of the HOW part of the question. And then they still say that evolution explains everything.
All you've shown so far is skilled dodging of serous questions.
ShogunV 1 year ago
@ShogunV
Simple answers are often the best and there's nothing empty about my answer, the fact that you don't understand it speaks volumes.
If you want to claim that god created the chemical properties of the elements then fine but I'd like to see the evidence.
For dna to form in this universe all you need is hydrogen and gravity I really don't see why you think it's such a big deal.
nakedapedude 1 year ago
@ShogunV Let me get this straight... you compare religion and science, saying science does not give enough "details or evidence of the HOW part" so you side with religion? HAH don't religion have absolutely no details and evidence at all? Isn't it all just something someone said, similarly to how the fiction writer created the religion scientology? Science isn't driven by "ABG" it's driven by "AWE" (Anything with evidence) lol.
Flows234 1 year ago
@Flows234 No you did not get it straight, you got it totally confused. I didn’t compare religion & science, nor did I say science doesn’t give details. I said Darwinian materialism (which is parasitic to science) has no details & no adequate explanation for a single complex organ or molecular machine, nor the origin of DNA. I did not say there is no scientific explanation; I said there is no materialistic explanation from those entrenched in materialistic ideology.
ShogunV 1 year ago
@ShogunV There are evidence on how organs have evolved though. By comparing species, you can see the changes in limbs, organs Fishes that live in darkness, have poor senses in their eyes compare to other species. Science provides a basis for understanding more about the species. I'm not sure if your a religious nut, but seeing how religion does not provide ANY information on origin of DNA or how a flagella evolved, then why should we give any credence to what religion says?
Flows234 1 year ago
@Flows234 Comparing the similarities in different species is not evidence for Darwinian evolution. Even I can put several organs in a series & claim to present evidence for evolution. But the morphing of these organs that we can picture in our heads by looking at the series is not a casual evidence for Darwinian evolution in & of itself. It’s only superficial proof. It takes more than simply drawing an imaginary line to connect different fossils/species coupled with biased interpretation.
ShogunV 1 year ago
@ShogunV Oh I also realized your arguments are so flawed... You need to stop reading those religious websites.. it's not putting organs together and claiming as is for evidence. 1) comparative anatomy how the anatomical signs of descent with modification. look at the the bone structure of a human, a cat, a whale, and bat, and then tell me what you think? 2) comparative embryology - in early development you can see pharyngeal pouches develop in gills also in human throats
Flows234 1 year ago
@ShogunV 3) paleontologists also found whales's flippers and small bones could be remants of ancestral hind legs and feet. look at their bone structure and tell me why it's like that? now don't tell me you can just put any organs together and automatically say it's evolution - when you also say "real evidence" shows cambrian explosion, your clearly mistaken? why would you ignore evidence that is currently provided now? there's obvious evidence for natural selection
Flows234 1 year ago
@Flows234 Real evidence would be proving that mutations do have such a creative power to produce new body plan novelties as seen in the Cambrian explosion. If any imaginary line is drawn to connect different species is to have any credibility we need proof from population genetics calculations based on real life mutation rates & coefficients of selection. A quantifiable account is needed not just simply hand-waving & speculative just so stories.
ShogunV 1 year ago
There's plenty of evidence.... look at natural selection?? wtf? you can compare species because you see limbs that are no longer in use for species, but they still have those parts.. and yes there is evidence showing how evolution took place. I can recall an article about a lizard losing it legs and turning more into a snake. if you want sources i can probably cite them. you said "from intuition, logic and experience" this is false.. explain? because my intuition logic and experience does not t
Flows234 1 year ago
@Flows234 Deterioration of function is irrelevant to the question of its origin. Some fishes have no eyes while living in darkness, but losing an eye is no proof that the eye originally evolved via Darwinian mechanisms. Such extrapolation is false. Where is the proof for gradual evolution of eyes? The oldest known eye is probably the complex trilobite eye which appeared abruptly along with many other body plan novelties in the Cambrian without showing any Precambrian precursors.
ShogunV 1 year ago
@ShogunV and deterioration is not irrelevant to question of it's origin. if you look at things now, you can get an idea how things worked in the past..biology doesn't just change it's method.. your saying we can't look at the thigns now to determine the past.. of course you can.. it's not like life will change it's method of evolution. your saying natural selection may be obsolete.. ri
Flows234 1 year ago
@Flows234 So the issue is about proving the adequacy of RM + NS in producing body plan novelties which has yet to be proven, until then all the imaginary lines connecting different species are next to meaningless speculations. It is also about proving that DNA information can arise via purely natural processes to prove the counter-intuitive materialistic claim that a complex information code does not need intelligence, while we know from intuition, logic & experience that this is false.
ShogunV 1 year ago
@ShogunV does not tell me this. it sounds liek someone with religion would say. I don't give a fuck about darwinism. Darwin could be a retarded frog fish for all I care, I just look at the current evidence there is. Darwin could be completely wrong, but when I talk about religion, I'm looking for an answer as to why people blindly accept it. I know its partly due to brainwashing from a early age, but shit people grow up and use logic.
Flows234 1 year ago
@ShogunV Not sure what religion says about how life was formed, but I believe there's stories like a god making people from mud and stuff from native american religion and in christianity says god created the word in 7 days. Not sure what zeus had to say about it or the other gods, but they haven't really gave me much evidence to base my beliefs in.
Flows234 1 year ago
@Flows234 By the way, you do not give any further credibility to Darwinism by attacking religion. It is a common tactic for Darwinists to label the opposite side as “religious” to make them seem less scientific. By doing so they are diverting the attentions away from the weaknesses of their side. Whatever beef you have with religion is irrelevant & is not the issue at hand here.
ShogunV 1 year ago
@ShogunV When I was a kid, I was basically using the socrate method and i was questioning myself about religion. If there is a god, then y the hell would it send a people to earth just to confuse them? if it's human nature to exploit these beliefs to control people, why did he send people to earth? if you MUST believe in god to get into heaven, then what about people who live in a country that never even heard of it? do they automatically goto hell? if u read any scriptures, u realize its bs
Flows234 1 year ago
@ShogunV I don't see how I'm diverting attention to the "weakness of their side" please elucidate. and religion is definetely relevant, because your arguing for "creationism" or "intelligent design" in other words someone who purposely created the world, in othe r words some fake guy you made up living in the sky creating stuff for you to worship
Flows234 1 year ago
@Flows234 You’re obviously a typical “Dawkins-style” atheist who views a simple debate about the adequacy of evolution as a full scale war between science and religion. Ironically, you are invoking more religious/metaphysical issues to discuss than I am, thinking that attacking religion would make you look smart & scientific. If you are scientific let as talk about stuff we know (evidence for/against Darwinism), not stuff we cannot comprehend (God’s purpose/metaphysics).
ShogunV 1 year ago
@Flows234 You are not presenting anything new, you’re deriving evidence for evolution basically based on homology as most Darwinists do, then you conclude that evolution is a FACT and whoever dares to allow himself the freedom of inquiry & question the adequacy of this evidence is a religious fundamentalist!! Such religion-hating amateur Darwinists cannot comprehend that there are others who just don’t share their materialistic worldview.
ShogunV 1 year ago
You just fail to realise that a demonstration of homology & progression of forms is not, in & of itself, a casual explanation for the claimed transition. It is imperative to demonstrate the “creative” power of mutations before such extrapolations are valid. It is also important to have some form of calculations of pop dynamics. Otherwise you’re left with speculation only, which can only be accepted if a demonstration is made to prove that the speculated mechanism can do what it’s claimed for.
ShogunV 1 year ago
@Flows234 Numbers matter. Ask yourself honestly: How many billions of trial & error did evolution take to produce something like the complex trilobite eye that appeared abruptly more than 500 mya? Do we see atleast 3, 4, or 5 of these billions of intermediate steps in Precambrian rocks to prove an evolutionary origin for the eye, or for any other Cambrian body plan novelty? Or are you content with saying “evolution did it” without asking How? Talk about blind belief!!
ShogunV 1 year ago
@ShogunV Why do you think strains of anti-resistant
bacteria is becoming predominant? It was originally caused by mutations that were able to withstand
anti-bacteria and through natural selection, it became prevalent
Flows234 1 year ago
@Flows234 Again, a lizard losing legs might be proof for the effect of natural selection which is not controversial. But the process that produced a loss of function cannot be extrapolated to explain the origin of the function from the start. This would require adequate proof for a hypothetical mutating process capable of producing new body functions.
ShogunV 1 year ago
@ShogunV you argue
because it doesn't PROVE evolution,then there must be another solution, and this solution might be
because of an intelligent creator,or god, or a fake person who must've created the world
If you think mutations are highly unlikely, I beg to differ. I can PROVE to you random mutations
occur quite frequently and espically with bacteria.
Flows234 1 year ago
@Flows234 And yes, we know that the origin of information is intelligence based on intuition, logic, & repeated observations from experience. We also know that the origin of highly specific functional proteins by random mutations is highly unlikely. It is not my fault that you decided to take a step against intuition & logic without even proving how meaningful functional information as in DNA can arise without need for intelligence, or how purely random mutations yield new functional proteins.
ShogunV 1 year ago
@ShogunV of how the world came about. Over hundreds of years
collection "new" evidence , they all point to the theory of evolution.
I don't see how you derived that I "failed to realise that a demonstration of homology and progression
of form is not in and of itself a casual explanation for the claimed transition" There is an abundant
of information showing how a species can transform and mutate. Since bacteria rapdily dies and grow,
Flows234 1 year ago
@ShogunV However, this may be true, BUT it leans towards the theory of
evolution and shows that species are adapting to environment through natural selection, their
physiology is changing, and because this is happening, it MAY happen to humans as well. Because this is
possible, it shows proof for the theory of evolution. now let me make this point VERY clear,
Flows234 1 year ago
@Flows234 And suppose homology is infallible proof, is it proof for unguided materialistic evolution, or guided theistic evolution? Or semi-guided as some might believe. Keep in mind that many evolutionists are theists who see no conflict b/w evolution & God. What makes you think you can make a stick out of evolution for beating religion? You’re just punching your way through a mesh of competing ideas with whatever version that suits your worldview; thinking that you know best.
ShogunV 1 year ago
@ShogunV ut humnans have 23. When we look at DNA, we see that human DNA shows the fusion of
a DNA, which creates 23 chromosomes.
I never concluded that evolution is a fact, but there is overwhelming evidence that shows natural
selection plays a part of how species evolved. (if you want evidence i will provide an abundant
of sources) and I don't understand when you say "presenting something new" because those who
present anything new researchers who find evidence
Flows234 1 year ago
@ShogunV You say "lizard losing legs might be proof for the effect of natural selection which is no controversial
but the process that produce a loss of function canot be extrapolated to explain the origin of the
function from the start" let me make it VERY CLEAR to everyone how an creationist's arguments are.
You are disregarding the information that is presently avaiable, and you are saying it is not sufficient
to prove the origins of evolution.
Flows234 1 year ago
@ShogunV I've had experiences where I've seen deceased family members as a ghost, when I was a child. I've had numerous experiences with the paranormal. I know science can not validate these experiences now, but it shows that there is more out there than we know. However, I see religion as a tool to control the people. People blindly follow their teaching without evidence. There is NO evidence for it at all, but you people insist in aruging by pointing out the flaws in science.
Flows234 1 year ago
Homochirality is the stake through the heart for evolution..life by time and chance impossible..biochemical chemistry has reached a dead end paradox!!!..people think simple chemicals could some how form life, they dont know real chemistry..they would rather believe in some unknown chemistry than an intelligence..this is why Miller failed to make life in a test tube and no building blocks were ever made or assembled..right and left handed amino acids together are toxic to life..
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv do you deny the evolution of species?
Daski69 1 year ago
Comment removed
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
Comment removed
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
Comment removed
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@Daski69 I got confused i do not believe in evolution
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv miller did not include sulfur, they just did a study where the addition of sulfur creates an even more variety of amino acids, bringing us closer to the truth. Remember, biochemistry has only been in existence in the last 50 years, meanwhile Islam has 1500 years of the same non-sense.
superoriginalname 10 months ago
@superoriginalname LOL..another dummy that knows nothing about biochemistry, so what!, you could have the amino acids you want, they would never organize them selves into digital code, information and form one single protein!!
5tonyvvvv 10 months ago
@superoriginalname Atheists are so stubborn, they think this RNA research could happen on a primordial earth..HAHAHA
Synthesizing machines trained chemists controlling every step of the experiment, along with activated bases,which were not made from scratch.and controlled TEMPERATURES!!!! would all be found on a primordial earth???
Yeah this is undirected natural processes..LOL
5tonyvvvv 10 months ago
@superoriginalname "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction.Intelligence created life not time and chance!!
5tonyvvvv 10 months ago
@ShogunV In time, we'll find the truth. Perhaps with the hadron collider or something else.. but you people who cling on to the last threads of r