Evolution is so illogical it has to be a conspiracy

every time a comet comes by it impregnates earth with new species (seeds in the dust, cosmic dust created by god).

we humans are not from this galaxy, for the fact we have heavy minerals in our bodies essential for our life like Iron.
Our galaxy the milky way can not make iron.
aal the iron in this galaxy came from somewhere else from big supernovas that can make iron.
we came from very very far away, or our seeds at least, like most animals on earth minus insects who are the true natives of this earth because they don't use Iron. they use Copper.

a reply to: Starbucks

What is Transpermia?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Starbucks

What is Transpermia?

but not only bacteria came from comets. all new animals came in a small dna chip, then angeles gave it food, and voalla, a new wolf comes into earth from an eggshell somewhere in the wildreness.

It's as though you have the answer. None of us ever, ever will. I'm not actually sure what is wrong with having philosophical objections to the god of the bible - the stories in the bible make it out to be a giant douche.

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
It's as though you have the answer. None of us ever, ever will. I'm not actually sure what is wrong with having philosophical objections to the god of the bible - the stories in the bible make it out to be a giant douche.

bible and others were corrupted by interpretations of the same people who promote evolution. follow their objective it's the same, devaluating god's massege.
they're making merry with your brain.
Be en guard on your own space, like tom jefferson once said all humans born free with unalienable rights. so don't give up your belief to get by.
Your life is short to negotiate on it. if it tastes bad looks bad smells bad , then it's bad.
you don't need to race in the rat race, since you got everything before the race.

So my forbidden truth from my closet is that evolution is a scam and an open lie.
Remember the story of the king walking naked in the street and everybody hailing the beautiful cloth of the king untill a little boy laaughed and said look the king is naked (the forbidden truth)

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
It's as though you have the answer. None of us ever, ever will. I'm not actually sure what is wrong with having philosophical objections to the god of the bible - the stories in the bible make it out to be a giant douche.

If you ever come to realise how puny and pathetic and insignificant your
opinion, of a far more massive intelligence, that is simply a Supreme Being
and your Creator, truly is? I'm talking minute here. Then you might be on the
road to understanding why other people, are smarter than to come to such
a half baked conclusion. But at least YOU have a high opinion of yourself.

a reply to: randyvs

Im sorry, I don't understand your post.

a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite

Basically, I said you don't understand God either.

a reply to: Starbucks
Hope you don't mind me jumping in a little on the late side on this thread, but I've been busy with other things for a while.

time allow for new generations. every time a new generation comes a dna copying happens. in the dna copying a mistake in copying called mutation happens. it is generally at 0.004 or four per thousand.

I think you need to be a little more specific in what kind of mutation you're talking about and what species you're talking about when throwing out statistics for rates of mutation. Are you talking about point mutations, or are you talking about multiple nucleotide insertions / deletions, or are you talking about whole gene region amplifications deletions? All of these can have vastly different effects on the organism in question. And are you talking about observed mutation rates in humans or some other species?

mutation (mistake) is inevidable it is a universal mistake regardless of species. it has to do with dna copying method.
the more streesors (difficult environment to survive the more mutation rate increase).

I think that's a common misconception -- that environment causes mutation rates to increase. Mutations generally occur regardless of environmental change or lack of environmental change. I'll grant that things like exposure to radiation may increase the rate, but not if we're talking about normal environmental changes. Changes in environment simply increase the likelihood of selection for the traits which are advantageous for the new environment.

Scientist have not seen a beneficial mutation (or mutations accumulation that is beneficial since discovery of dna 65 years ago). they also never saw a beneficial evolution happens since darwin 150 years ago.

That's patently false. Just because you haven't made yourself aware of where those beneficial mutations have been observed doesn't mean they don't exist.

all evolution theory depends on description of bones or fragments of bones impossible to date) there is no power of relation and no power of causation.
it is all descriptive.

Again, patently false. Evolution is described, in a very simple way, as a change in allele frequency within a given population over successive generations. The overwhelming majority of the evidence in support of evolution is genetic, not fossil, to the point where modern evolutionary synthesis would still stand as the dominant explanation for biological diversity in the complete absence of a fossil record. You may want to gain a better understanding of the evidence in support of evolution before suggesting that "evolution theory depends on description of bones or fragments of bones".

a reply to: Starbucks

Sorry - you don't understand the science. Mutations happen all the time - they're just changes in the genome that either benefit or don't benefit the organism. Without mutation, organisms could never adapt to changing environments.

•Evidence from genetics. The genomes of all organisms contain overwhelming evidence for evolution. All living species share the same basic mechanism of heredity using DNA (or RNA in some viruses) to encode genes that are passed from parent to offspring, and which are transcribed and translated into proteins during each organism’s life. Using DNA sequences, biologists quantify the genetic similarities and differences among species, in order to determine which species are more closely related to one another and which are more distantly related. In doing so, biologists use essentially the same evidence and logic used to determine paternity in lawsuits. The pattern of genetic relatedness between all species indicates a branching tree that implies divergence from a common ancestor. Within this tree of life, there are also occasional reticulations where two branches fuse, rather than separate. (For example, mitochondria are organelles found in the cells of plants and animals. Mitochondria have their own genes, which are more similar to genes in bacteria than to genes on the chromosomes in the cell nucleus. Thus, one of our distant ancestors arose from a symbiosis of two different cell types.) The genetic similarity between species, which exists by virtue of evolution from the same ancestral form, is an essential fact that underlies biomedical research. This similarity allows us to begin to understand the effects of our own genes by conducting research on genes from other species. For example, genes that control the process of DNA repair in bacteria, flies, and mice have been discovered to influence certain cancers in humans. These findings also suggest strategies for intervention that can be explored in other species before testing on humans.

www.actionbioscience.org...

a reply to: Phantom423

all i can say about your ref is that he is good in stacking words.

similarities between species is due to the makewr using the same building blocks at will.

in humans there are genes found only in deep sea water (below 3 km deep) bacteria. the genes do something differently in each, the genes are essential for life in both.

in humans and chimps there are same genes but do totally different things in each.

the similarities in genes and dna between species is evidence of creation that make genes make different things between species.
the building blocks are also patented to god. He is free to use them again and again.

a reply to: Starbucks

Um, there are many known supernovas that have happened in the Milky Way, capable of creating Iron. In fact, our sun was originally part of a binary star system. One of the stars went Nova and was absorbed into the other while the remaining dust and debris formed the planets around it. There's a reason our earth is so rich with heavy metals and iron is in our blood. Denying supernovas is pretty much where you go from speculation and assuming to completely jumping off the deep end.

if evolution theory fails to explain one species then all the theory is wrong.
evolution theory failed to explain how humans branched out from chimps 7 million years ago and spread all over the world, then suddenly all of them died out minus a small clan of homosapiens 30-200 thousand years ago.

and the great leap forward can only explained by intelligent design not evolution, and all happened at same time, the great leap forward , Y-chromosomal Adam (MRCA of all current humans). these info miraculously fits the creation story of Adam.

a reply to: Starbucks

Instead of repeating these same claims in 4 different threads, you should make your own and address them there. There's no reason to have the same conversation 4 times over. Evolution has absolutely succeeded in explaining how chimps and humans share a common apelike ancestor. There was no giant leap forward, only a series of small steps over a 7-10 million year time period. It is perfectly explained by the 20+ species of hominid that have been discovered between ancient ape and modern human. It's not like they are guessing. Darwin predicted that we'd find numerous species in between and we have.

yes but how you explain all those genre homo died out through hidtory, while chimps and monkeys branches did not die out. the claim they died out means they never existed. it is all imagination or better yet outright fraud.

those old bones were of monkeys or recent date human bones misdated to ancient times.

the existance of neanderthal dna in humans is also the existance of human dna in neanderthals which means neanderthals were humans misdated to relatively older times by not so precise dating based on evolution that does not exist in the first place.

originally posted by: Starbucks
yes but how you explain all those genre homo died out through hidtory, while chimps and monkeys branches did not die out. the claim they died out means they never existed. it is all imagination or better yet outright fraud.

Tons of monkey branches have died out. The environment is constantly changing. Humans didn't evolve from chimps or monkeys, we just share a common ancestor. It's a common misconception of evolution. Dying out doesn't mean you never existed. It means your environment changed to the point where you can no longer survive. Your argument doesn't make sense.

those old bones were of monkeys or recent date human bones misdated to ancient times.

Prove this statement.

the existance of neanderthal dna in humans is also the existance of human dna in neanderthals which means neandethals were humans misdated to relatively older times by not so precise dating based on evolution that does not exist in the first place.

They weren't misdated. They are miscategorized as a species. In all likelihood Neanderthals were older homo sapiens. HSS and HSN were subspecies of one another but were actually the same species because they could breed.

neanderthals were homosapiens descendents from Y chromosomal Adam, of the Europpean branch, because all current humans have that Neanderthal DNA even the African who did not leave africa (Paternal haplogroup A, B, most E, Maternal Haplogroup L1, L2)

a reply to: Starbucks

all current humans have that Neanderthal DNA even the African who did not leave africa

This is false. It varies from human to human and they have 1-4% Neanderthal DNA except for Subsaharan African tribes that have none.

genographic.nationalgeographic.com...

A team of scientists comparing the full genomes of the two species concluded that most Europeans and Asians have between 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA. Indigenous sub-Saharan Africans have no Neanderthal DNA because their ancestors did not migrate through Eurasia.

Stop spreading disinfo.

not true
africans have between 1.5 % neanderthal dna to trace amounts in some, but all africans have.

Melanesians have the most neanderthal dna more than europpeans and also of Dinosovans who are older cousins of neanderthals accordig to them

Neanderthal have more of their dna in Europpeans, Chinese Han and Melanesians (all three from the same branch from Y chromosomal Adam ! (haplogroup K) neanderthal dna is also higher in Native Americans (haplogroup Q also bbranch of haplogroup K!)
which means that the Hasplogoup k (the melanesians! ) immigrated to north china (han chinese) then north Asia (the ancient europpeans (where neanderthal two caves are ) and then moved into europe (haplogroup R).

the Neanderthals had blue eyes mutation and red hair and red skin mutation (same as blond melanesians and europpeans) Denosan woman had also the Lactose intolerance mutation of europpean women. all mutations proven recent history 5000 years old

a reply to: Starbucks

Stop being mendacious. You're just proving that you live under a bridge and eat billy goats.