Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

a reply to: Noinden

You are an evolutionist because evolution is nothing more than a theory...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Ah so you are from the middle East? Or are you from an Indo-European background? I certainly am! My goids came from the north in flying ships before fighting the Fir bolg, fomorie and finally Sons sof Mille.

Again proof is not unsubstantiated comments. Proof is evidence. Evidence please. Or acknowledgement of your gnosis.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Theories in science are supported by evidence. Just like gravity, thermodynamics and molecular mechanisms. I have cited evidence in this and many other threads here. I have worked in labs on these very questions.

a reply to: Noinden

[Personalised Comments removed]

a reply to: 5StarOracle

[Personalised Comments removed]

a reply to: Noinden

Is all of creation not all around you?
Is it all not created?

[Personalised Comments removed]

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Not proof. Creationism implies deity or deities. Perhaps Odun and his brothers created this from a dead Johtan? Or successive invasions of Eire? Or all of creation sprung from a singularity? There is more evidence for the last than divine creation!

a reply to: Noinden

It's entirely more proof than supposition...
I'm going to go eat some turkey...
Cya later evolutionist...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

And here we go again with the "it's only a theory" routine. You say this as if the word "Theory" implies a level of uncertainty. This simply is not the case. Just like its not true that Modern evolutionary Synthesis has anything to do with how life originated on Earth. But I digress... Modern Evolutionary Synthesis addresses the facts of evolution and serves to explain how the mechanisms of evolution operate. Saying its "just a theory" shows that you are repeating a one sided argument without actually doing research into what MES actually entails. Shouldn't that be one of the first steps? Understanding what is postulated in a theory or hypothesis you are attempting to debunk?

a reply to: peter vlar

You mean like how I debunked Noinden's claim that evolutionist is not a word?
I'm not trying to debunk evolution I just don't believe everything evolution claims...
I believe in some forms of evolution just not the family tree and many other claims...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

It is a word that is invalid as per its definition. You can make any word up in English it does not mean it is correct

a reply to: GroidNificent

yeah and the whole woman made from the rib of adam vs slow evolution is nice too.

We all start developing with a female "blueprint"

The differentiation of the male sex organ canals is influenced by the testosterone hormone that is produced from the 8th week in the fetal testis by Leydig's interstitial cells.

21.4 Development of the internal genital organs

this proves that all female and male share a common beginning.
somehow the sexless organism evolved and began to develop a "simple" way to reproduce itself differently than its counterparts...

this modification made it "stronger" and it prevailed over the sexless ones.
(there are still organisms that don't need males to reproduce)
somewhere in its development this "simple" modification started to infuse a bit of someone else its "info"

(the first "simple modification" could have been started off because some external "info" insertion happened, imagine the "soup" getting more acidic (evaporation of water) and weakening the cell wall/membrane, less water less space so they got "pushed" against each other, the weakening of the cells wall made it possible to fuse some cells together.)

it survived ("female") and the ones that got infused("male") into the other didn't.
(i know they are not female or male, its just easier to imagine it this way)
a long long developing path began and we can still see this in embryos , we start with the "female blueprint" and in week 8th a male forms because of the influence of testosterone, and it rejects some female "blueprint info" the female follows its original "blueprint"

the clitoris will become a penis.
imagine that the initial modification that infused external "info" now developed to have a "sensor" to spot the best candidate to infuse.

and there you go, this "sensor" became the clitoris.
now imagine a cell desperately looking for sensor input, or feeling around for a better candidate, and enlarging its "sensor" .
now it has the "info" to pass on to its offspring and with that these offspring has better surviving options than the ones without it.
somewhere on the line of evolution it started to "specialize" this modification.
and there you go this, specialization became the penis.

with that said...
what came first the chicken or the egg?
"the chicken was the egg."

a reply to: Noinden

Wrong again...
No surprise. ..
www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com...
I thought you said you were a scientist...
I guess we can learn from you...
Scientists open thier mouths and say all kinds of things that are not true...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Noinden

You are an evolutionist because evolution is nothing more than a theory...

So's gravity DUH and I'm pretty sure all you creationists depend on "the theory gravity" being correct. I am writing this on a computer whose semiconductor physics at the heart of all the chips depend on theories. I know because I have an honours degree in these theories. At no point did God come down during my 3 years of labs wave his finger and make my schottky diodes behave exactly as theory predicted.

How weird all these theories that work that we depend on.

originally posted by: peter vlar
And here we go again with the "it's only a theory" routine. ...

Modern Evolutionary Synthesis addresses the facts of evolution and serves to explain how the mechanisms of evolution operate. Saying its "just a theory" shows that you are repeating a one sided argument without actually doing research into what MES actually entails.

And here we go again with the ole, "MES adequately addresses all the facts and mechanisms by which evolution operates", stuff. You can put me in the so called "evolutionist" camp, but what you said there is a bit dishonest, and misleading.

The MES does not explain all the facets of how, mechanically, evolution works. No where in the literature have I been able to find a definition of the MES that includes things such as LGT, Non-Mendelian inheritance systems, epigenetics, Polyphenism, or transposable elements, just to name only a few.

I've asked repeatedly for someone to please provide some reputable resources that confirm the language of the MES has been changed in the last 10 or 15 years to account for things we've learned from the sequencing of genomes, for instance. And still no one has done it. Only to simply say things like, " well of course its been updated. It's always being update ." That's a lie.

I'll gladly eat my hat if someone could please show me an official definition of the MES that includes at least some of the things I've mentioned. Otherwise please understand that when you say things like the MES accounts for everything suggesting it's all we need to know, you are misleading people.

a reply to: yorkshirelad

are you an evolutionist or are you saying evolutionist is not a word?
what's your theory?
Do you know what context means?

Reminder

A request for civility and non-personalised discussion/debate was made HERE a page back...

Please keep it on-topic - the topic isn't eachother.
I have edited/removed the personalised comments from a number of replies.
Continued inclusion of such within replies will not be edited, but removed via an Off-Topic Warn or as warranted.


Thank you for your understanding.