wirinet:

I am surprised you are talking like this. You are beginning to sound like a theologist. It is only theologist that claim to know exactly how the universe began, no scientist claim that. What scientists have are various postulations and guesses. No one can know exactly how the universe began, because no one witnessed it and there is no observable data before the universe began or even after it began (that is even if it had a beginning in the true sense of the word). What scientist are fairly confident of is what happens long after the beginning from their interpretation of observable data.
You cannot compare that with the postulation by theologists of "God did it" or since it exist it must have been created by someone" without any supporting evidence or data whatsoever.
To the theologists, all uknown obsevations stop at God did, while with the scientists vigorous debates and arguments ensures and the most widely acceptable explanation for "observable data" wins, albeit temporarily until a better explanation comes along or new data that does not conform to old explanation is observed. Einstein and Bohr debated quantum mechanics 3 times and in the end Einstein was "wrong" and Bohr was "right" and today quantum mechanics rules the microscopic world.
It is a travesty to put the Big Bang Theory in the same league with the "God did it" hypothesis.

Funny. I read the first statement and cracked up laughing. I would have accused myself of "claiming to not know exactly how the universe began", and I'm refusing to accept the doctrine of a big bang per se. Are you sure you are reading me correctly? I'll add to the confusion. I am a theist, having abandoned the "a" that preceded it at the turn of the year, but I'm not one to believe stuff. I put that down to my years of ingrained non-believing atheism, which I have not managed to completely abandon.

I'm not claiming God done it, but if God did do it it all very likely went bang and it was likely big. However, to me, that's all speculation, or in your words "various postulations and guesses", since as I said, "we struggle to know what happened 100 years ago, 200 years ago, 10,000 years ago, and even yesterday in Nigeria, so anything said about a billion years ago can only be mythology, at least, to me". I'm not prepared to take "various postulations and guesses" and from that "claim to know exactly how the universe began", or go ahead and believe what I consider to be just another myth. (I'm not resisting temptation here and hope you see the funny side when I say, unlike you who like some theist insists you know it went bang!)

I mean, think about it. If there was a bang, something must have instigated it. And I don't mean a God said, but that something must have existed which must have gone bang, but have you noticed how nothing is said about it? I put it to you that that's because no one has a clue. So, yes, my ignorance can be said to be filled with God and it's an admission of that fact - my ignorance - that made me dump the all knowing "a" in front of the more humble ignorant theist that I have become.

That though does not mean I "stop at God did it", or at the "widely accepted explanation" and "various postulations and guesses" of a big bang "albeit temporarily until a better explanation comes along or new data". Why dump one "widely accepted explanation" and "various postulations and guesses" of God done it for another "widely accepted explanation" and "various postulations and guesses" of a big bang? Even though a theist, why behave as a theologist and "claim to know exactly how the universe began "when I really don't". Can't I just be honest and say, I, buda, is ignorant and don't have a clue how the universe began? It really is the truth that as far as the beginning of the universe is concerned, and despite all my reading on the subject, buda is ignorant.

The universe is said to be 13.8 billion years old, and I'm not prepared to do what some do which is, look at all that I see today and claim it began with a bang, and it's just way too long ago for me to accept that some people (prophets, if you may), can possibly see so far back and claim they know exactly what did happen. It sounds so Bible to me a la because there is something there must be a creator, or there was a bang. The Bible, like all books, and most things, are to be understood, and not stupidly brainlessly believe in "various postulations and guesses" which to me are no different to "God said".

As for "after the beginning", though, I do accept the idea that things evolved from then on, since even in my own very short time of living I have seen evolution, albeit not of apes nor fruitflies, but of the Mercedes Benz S Class which clearly has evolved in my lifetime, as has the reasoning of Nigerians too, on the whole, which has evolved from our ancient gods done it to our current atheism which is spreading.

EmperorHarry:
Well I cannot provide you with that evidence but I think there are evolutionist videos on YouTube that can if you care to research.

Does evidence for the change of one kind of creature into another exist? Is there - as you claimed - evidence for animals being able to undergo changes to the genome such that they become an entirely different kind of creature

EmperorHarry:
Did you really read the key areas I gave you in that link.If it is an explanation for the origin of all species would religious institutions adapt it to their creation stories? The evolutionists that use it as an explanation of the origin of life or to refute ID are the one's that are the problem.I stated this earlier on my first post on this thread. You should prolly reread the article I referred you to.

Yes I did, it did not answer my question. Please point it out if it did. This point is not about the origin of life or ID. I merely asked for the "observable, verified and evident" of macro-evolution that you asserted.

EmperorHarry:
Uhm it wasn't meant to answer your question but to enlighten you about the common mistakes people who have an objection to evolution make and even evolutionists themselves. I've always been sceptical about this theory cos of the gaps and missing links which are yet to be filled but in light of the evidence put toward it's actually plausible and in no way afffects ID except to a creationist who believes the earth is 6000 years old give or take.

I asked for enlightenment about something you specifically claimed. This was not an objection per se, nor about ID or the age of the earth. If you have no answer or would like to retract or otherwise modify your claim, please say so.

kkins25:
you see the problem with this Christian apologetics is that they know nothing outside the bible. Except for folks like muttleylaff and a very few other which im yet to see on the thread.

There has been no reference ot the bible, just a request to evidence an assertion. At this point, I can only take comfort from being on the opposite side of a doctrinal issue from you MuttleyLaff .

kkins25:
from what youve been saying since, i have to tell you to read some more on the topic. Kindly do sir. Youve got it wrong.

Another one without a clue

Evolutionist - Macro-evolution is proven, true, fact, evidenced, documented
Interlocutor - Could you please explain the mechanism for....
Evolutionist - You don't understand...you need to read more...you are ignorant...


TV

budaatum:


I don't know where you get the idea of a "belief in molecules-to-man evolution", or why you'd be asking me to name a technology that began in such a way. Care to explain what you mean?

That said, every technology started from an idea in someone's mind, but that of course is not what you meant, I'm sure.

I am sorry for asking a level 401 question to a level 101 student of evolution.

Heathen777:


Modern medicine, the combat against pathogen wouldn't be possible without the fundamental understanding of evolution.

How? Can you be specific?

Heathen777:


Policies on the environment have also been shaped by our understanding of evolution.

What policy in particular are you referring to?

Heathen777:

Being a creationist before, the theory of evolution never made much sense or seemed believable. I could explain fossil evidence by relying on apologetic's resources on The Great flood.

But finally after abandoning my faith, I found how much I really didn't understand the theory of evolution really. And why there couldn't have been a global flood.

There couldn't have been a global flood,the geological layer wouldn't exist the way it is. You see if there was a global flood, we'd expect the heavier denser particles to settle at the bottom (because they are heavier and would settle faster) while the lighter finer ones to rise to the top , however this is not the case in the geologic column, they interchange wildly between heavy to light, which proves they couldn't have been laid down by flood waters as mentioned in the bible.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnKWuEcFheQ

What do you know about the 'geologic column'? You still haven't answered the question of how the Darwinian theory of evolution has given rise to one piece of technology.

OLAADEGBU:


I am sorry for asking a level 401 question to a level 101 student of evolution.

Your question was not level 401. It was more like level 001, pre-school, and goes to show that even to ask questions requires thought, and research, which incidentally, is presented for you in this thread, but which typically, you're blinded to for some reason.

A simple "Care to explain what you mean?" And the above is your response Olaadegbu! I bow my head in sincere prayer on your behalf because you never would, it seems!

budaatum:


Your question was not level 401. It was more like level 001, pre-school, and goes to show that even to ask questions requires thought, and research, which incidentally, is presented for you in this thread, but which typically, you're blinded to for some reason.

A simple "Care to explain what you mean?" And the above is your response Olaadegbu! I bow my head in sincere prayer on your behalf because you never would, it seems!

I don't have to be explaining or teaching you what molecule to man evolution means if you truly understand the Darwinian theory of evolution but never mind, we use different software in processing information.

OLAADEGBU:


I don't have to be explaining or teaching you what molecule to man evolution means if you truly understand the Darwinian theory of evolution but never mind, we use different software in processing information.

We sure do, it seems. Or I'd bother to tell you to go to post one in this very thread.

Johnydon22. You are making me go back and learn from what I myself wrote! My appreciation is immensely boundless.

budaatum:


We sure do, it seems. Or I'd bother to tell you to go to post one in this very thread.

Same hardware, different operating systems.

OLAADEGBU:


Same hardware, different operating systems.

The thought of a mind that can hold both must be way beyond your level despite the perils of malnutrition that afflicts those who eat only bread.

Mark my word, The Lord God will bless you with offspring who despite all your efforts to malnourish them will most definitely feed on every Word and evolve beyond your level.

You will remember on that day that buda did tell you so.

TV01:
There has been no reference ot the bible, just a request to evidence an assertion. At this point, I can only take comfort from being on the opposite side of a doctrinal issue from you MuttleyLaff .

what brings muttley here now ehnn??

Another one without a clue

Evolutionist - Macro-evolution is proven, true, fact, evidenced, documented
Interlocutor - Could you please explain the mechanism for....
Evolutionist - You don't understand...you need to read more...you are ignorant...


TV

Evolution has not claimed to fully understand the whole process of evolution. At a microlevel, evolution has been proved beyond doubt. As a matter of fact the evolution from unicellular organization to multicellular organization has been demonstrated. Day by day evolution is making more freaking sense than the BS story of Noahs ark.
If evolution is false then answer me this

Capslocked, budaatum, seun, muttleylaff, loj, billy0naire, EmperorHarry, come and bear witness to this.

All creationist in this thread should tell us
IF GOD CREATRD A DOG ALONG WITH OTHER ANIMALS ON THE 5TH DAY OF CREATION..

TVO1, SHEPHERD00, OPENMINE, ANSWER OR BE LABELED AS BLIND BRAINWASHED BUFFONS.

OLAADEGBU:


Same hardware, different operating systems.

ogbenni why dont you tell us why dinosaurs werent saved by mr noah?

TV01:
Does evidence for the change of one kind of creature into another exist? Is there - as you claimed - evidence for animals being able to undergo changes to the genome such that they become an entirely different kind of creature

Yes I did, it did not answer my question. Please point it out if it did. This point is not about the origin of life or ID. I merely asked for the "observable, verified and evident" of macro-evolution that you asserted.

I asked for enlightenment about something you specifically claimed. This was not an objection per se, nor about ID or the age of the earth. If you have no answer or would like to retract or otherwise modify your claim, please say so.

I can only refer you to comprehensive links and research articles that portray evolution in it's simple forms.Unlike some folks at quora and reddit who are more knowledgeable(by experience in the field and years of research) and are willing to provide a compendious answer to every question and misconceptions you have about the subject,I am only limited to my subjective research (which has changed my perspective and enlightened me remarkably on the subject) and I don't have the mental strength nor fervor to have a long ass discussion in a bid to shed more light on evolutuon.You can learn more by reading through the answers and convos that can be found on the sites including debate.com and medium etc to subjectively understand evolution so you know where the gaps and holes are and how sceptical you should be about them.
The evolution theory becomes complicated when it is adapted to try to explain philosophical questions in a bid to provide a natural and materialistic explanation for everything.This leaves us with more questions than answers with a underwhelming amount of evidence to back up hypotheses postulated.Evolution independent of this as regards to the observation initially documented by Jean Baptiste Lamarck and modified by Darwin is a very plausible theory that is supported by adaptation.It has been promoted from an hypothesis to a scientific theory after billions of dollars and years of research from different scientists in various fields and there is a consensus that it's as valid as the earth is spherical(This doesn't mean it isn't liable to change and can be demoted to a hypothesis in light of new indisputable evidences).
That's just the fun thing about science independent of personal interests and influence.It doesn't have all the answers and a true scientist wouldn't claim to know it all.As vaxx said,science is a work in progress with more questions than answers.
At this point you must prolly be thinking,all this words and yet no answer to your simple question.I admit I'm not even attempting to provide evidences as regards your question but if you find anybody that does,try to be open-minded.I'm only writing this so as to nudge you to find out more about evolution indepthly for yourself before you disapprove of it cos I've been there before.

This is just my opinion and I would entertain any objections and corrections.

How far we've come through science, philosophy et al

kkins25:
what brings muttley here now ehnn??

kkins25:
Evolution has not claimed to fully understand the whole process of evolution.

kkins25:
At a microlevel, evolution has been proved beyond doubt.

If by macro-level you refer to adaptation, they yes - all within the limits of the extant genetic information

kkins25:
As a matter of fact the evolution from unicellular organization to multicellular organization has been demonstrated.

Feel free to provide evidence for that. Although what we are after is the change of one creature - say megafauna - into another, and the mechanism behind the acquisition of new data to effect that process.

kkins25:
Day by day evolution is making more freaking sense than the BS story of Noahs ark.

I have no problem with you asserting this, it's not the question I asked. Please answer that if you are able.

kkins25:
If evolution is false then answer me this
Capslocked, budaatum, seun, muttleylaff, loj, billy0naire, EmperorHarry, come and bear witness to this.

All creationist in this thread should tell us
IF GOD CREATRD A DOG ALONG WITH OTHER ANIMALS ON THE 5TH DAY OF CREATION..

TVO1, SHEPHERD00, OPENMINE, ANSWER OR BE LABELED AS BLIND BRAINWASHED BUFFONS.

No, it was the 6th .


TV

EmperorHarry:

I can only refer you to comprehensive links and research articles that portray evolution in it's simple forms.Unlike some folks at quora and reddit who are more knowledgeable(by experience in the field and years of research) and are willing to provide a compendious answer to every question and misconceptions you have about the subject,I am only limited to my subjective research (which has changed my perspective and enlightened me remarkably on the subject) and I don't have the mental strength nor fervor to have a long ass discussion in a bid to shed more light on evolutuon.You can learn more by reading through the answers and convos that can be found on the sites including debate.com and medium etc to subjectively understand evolution so you know where the gaps and holes are and how sceptical you should be about them.
The evolution theory becomes complicated when it is adapted to try to explain philosophical questions in a bid to provide a natural and materialistic explanation for everything.This leaves us with more questions than answers with a underwhelming amount of evidence to back up hypotheses postulated.Evolution independent of this as regards to the observation initially documented by Jean Baptiste Lamarck and modified by Darwin is a very plausible theory that is supported by adaptation.It has been promoted from an hypothesis to a scientific theory after billions of dollars and years of research from different scientists in various fields and there is a consensus that it's as valid as the earth is spherical(This doesn't mean it isn't liable to change and can be demoted to a hypothesis in light of new indisputable evidences).
That's just the fun thing about science independent of personal interests and influence.It doesn't have all the answers and a true scientist wouldn't claim to know it all.As vaxx said,science is a work in progress with more questions than answers.
At this point you must prolly be thinking,all this words and yet no answer to your simple question.I admit I'm not even attempting to provide evidences as regards your question but if you find anybody that does,try to be open-minded.I'm only writing this so as to nudge you to find out more about evolution indepthly for yourself before you disapprove of it cos I've been there before.

This is just my opinion and I would entertain any objections and corrections.

I can't honestly say I consider this any kind of answer. However, I am really impressed by the effort you have gone in your response. My regards.


TV

[quote author=TV01 post=79441263]

If by macro-level you refer to adaptation, they yes - all within the limits of the extant genetic information

Feel free to provide evidence for that. Although what we are after is the change of one creature - say megafauna - into another, and the mechanism behind the acquisition of new data to effect that process.


I have no problem with you asserting this, it's not the question I asked. Please answer that if you are able.

oh shut the hell up already!! Just tell us if God created a Dog. Did God also create the domestic cat?

No, it was the 6th .

An old outdated TV

kkins25:
oh shut the hell up already!! Just tell us if God created a Dog. Did God also create the domestic cat?

God created the dog "kind" and the "cat" kind.

No need to get salty . Are you able to explain or provide evidence of the mechanism whereby DNA is able to acquire and encode new information which leads to wholesale changes in morphology, such that they become completely different kinds of animals?


Cheers
TV

TV01:
God created the dog "kind" and the "cat" kind.

No need to get salty . Are you able to explain or provide evidence of the mechanism whereby DNA is able to acquire and encode new information which leads to wholesale changes in morphology, such that they become completely different kinds of animals?


Cheers
TV

Lol!!!! The dog kimd and cat kind.. Hahahaahaha..

As to your second paragraph, my brother my brother, we've mentioned countless times that the acquisition of novel nucleotide data happened within the span of millions of years. We know this for fact :
For instance take lets take a look at EMBRYOLOGY.

Embryology as a proof of evolutionary linkage between organism(mammals) entails that the developing embryo of these group of organism all happen to have very synonymous looking babies. The babies of pigs, man, goat, elephant, sheep, etc at one stage in the development all look alike and almost indifferent. This is no mere coincidence.

If A God created man then he didn't just snappped his finhgers and voila adam was born. No. It hints us that your God must have created you using these animals as model. The most important model being the chimpanzee. Its no coincidence that the chimpanzee and adam share 97% of DNA material. Somehow adam most be related to the chimpanzee.

We have observed certain features in organisms that suggest that all animal and plant life are related.

How does a pig morph into an elephant?
This is a ridiculous question. It is not possible for a lion to turn to tiger. No. Thats something only people who subscribe to the creationist philosophy would do.

Science has never stated that a pig change to an elephant. We most times cannot establish which organism came first and which came after. What science has said is that, similar organisms most have originated from a common ancestor.

A pig didnt give rise to an elephant. They likely originated from

We acknowledge that we don't know everything yet. We acknowledge that there are missing links. On the less we are not "brain lazy". We will keep breaking our backs to educate those like yourself. Who simply fill every gap of mystery with God.


Another viable proof is our discovery of fossils. My goodness, you'd be astonished to the discoveries science has made. We have found fossils that are older than adam. So how an adam be the first man when we have other homo's like Taung 1Taung Childwhom is millions of years old.

There are many more discovered fossils with anatomy that are slighty different from what we have now. All you have to do is read. Oga i beg you- read. What we have seen with our koro koro eyes does not tally with the fairytales of the bible. Like muttleylaff has said, stop taking everything in the bible as lIteral. Even the story of job is been argued to be figurative or symbolic.


Aside anatomy and fossil discovery, we have OBSERVED BIOGEOGRAPHICAL influence on the category of organisms we have on the face of the planet. For example, lets take a look at Australia, we have observed that the group of mamals there are marsupial mammals rather than placental as we see in other ecosystem of the world.

Marsupial are so named because they do not hnutire their embryos via the placenta. I dont want to bore you with too much detail so you should do your own investigation when you are ready. I dont want to write lengthy detailed post like muttley and no one would read.

Even though, climatic conditions are thesame with other regions with similar environmental conditions. BIOGEOGRAPHICAL distribution of organisms suggests that, organisms can indeed change into something not entirely but significantly different from it ancestors. We know for sure that Australia was once connected to antartica millions of years ago. We also know that the fauna of Australia most have journeyed across other lands to Australia. However, when Australia became separated and drifted through different climatic conditions these animlas and plants underwent some serious modifications.


Another even more prominent, non arguable proof is the damn genetic sequence similarity between all organisms. No need to talk much here.


Now, we have also seen organims that pose as a bridge between one organism to another. For example, salamders look like snakes and lizerds. Duck billed platypus looks like a bird but it is a mammal. It even lays eggs. We previously thouth dolphins were fishes but we were wrong. They are bloody mammals too. Bros if i keep talking, we will not live here
I don dey tire self. Ohh this tablet doesnt allow me display my potentials conveniently. I should boot up my windows. But naaahh..

kkins25:

Lol!!!! The dog kimd and cat kind.. Hahahaahaha..

That's correct. Ogbeni, what causes your laughter . Animal kinds were created with perfect genomes, able to adapt to a variety of conditions and situations.

kkins25:
As to your second paragraph, my brother my brother, we've mentioned countless times that the acquisition of novel nucleotide data happened within the span of millions of years. We know this for fact :

It can't be a fact if it has not been directly observed or, it lacks the evidence to clearly demonstrate it. Your assertion here is at best speculative and not science. Perfectly coded data/information cannot happen randomly, no matter how much time elapses. Fact! There must be an author. Fact

Darwin, bless him, he's my homie, was ignorant of DNA. We now know that it is code/information. If one grasps the laws on information, it is clear that information does not occur by chance - information that is storable, transmissible, decodable (think language bro'), must have an author and never occurs randomly or by chance in nature. Further, there is no known natural process whereby DNA acquires new information. All the evidence points to a loss of information over time, not a gain. Deleteriation, not acquisition.

kkins25:
For instance take lets take a look at EMBRYOLOGY.

Embryology as a proof of evolutionary linkage between organism(mammals) entails that the developing embryo of these group of organism all happen to have very synonymous looking babies. The babies of pigs, man, goat, elephant, sheep, etc at one stage in the development all look alike and almost indifferent. This is no mere coincidence.

So really you're just a regurgitator . Embryology as evidence of evolution has been shown to be fraudulent ages ago. Are you a learner?

kkins25:
If A God created man then he didn't just snappped his finhgers and voila adam was born. No. It hints us that your God must have created you using these animals as model. The most important model being the chimpanzee. Its no coincidence that the chimpanzee and adam share 97% of DNA material. Somehow adam most be related to the chimpanzee.

Yes He did. And more evidence of your "L-Plates". The 97% correlation was for the 15% of the genome that codes for morphology, not the total genome. not to mention that like comparisons can be made with fruit and veg - tell me is man related to shrubs . Choose to be deceived, no wahalla.

kkins25:
We have observed certain features in organisms that suggest that all animal and plant life are related.

Weak, weak, weak. Any scientist worth his salt knows that data or evidence can fit a number of thesis. One could just as readily say that commonality points to a single author/designer or base template.

kkins25:
How does a pig morph into an elephant?
This is a ridiculous question. It is not possible for a lion to turn to tiger. No. Thats something only people who subscribe to the creationist philosophy would do.

No one asked you that. The question was about the mechanism behind the cellular acquisition of new information. Answer now, stop throwing tantrums

kkins25:
Science has never stated that a pig change to an elephant. We most times cannot establish which organism came first and which came after. What science has said is that, similar organisms most have originated from a common ancestor.

Fine. Simply show how the genetic material in the first life-form acquired "new" information that allowed it to change morphology. For fish, for cattle, for birds, for bacteria, for plants, for all living creatures. E caan done, 'cos it didn't happen. As much as you strain to believe. Force of will won't make it so bro'.

kkins25:
We acknowledge that we don't know everything yet. We acknowledge that there are missing links. On the less we are not "brain lazy". We will keep breaking our backs to educate those like yourself. Who simply fill every gap of mystery with God.

. Look at his face. Mutating lifeform. Your leaps of faith are greater than anything creationists have to bridge.

kkins25:
Another viable proof is our discovery of fossils. My goodness, you'd be astonished to the discoveries science has made. We have found fossils that are older than adam. So how an adam be the first man when we have other homo's like Taung 1Taung Childwhom is millions of years old.

Sweet. Put your faith in flawed, assumption-ridden dating methods. You will defend your faith at all costs. Gap ko...breach ni

kkins25:

There are many more discovered fossils with anatomy that are slighty different from what we have now. All you have to do is read. Oga i beg you- read. What we have seen with our koro koro eyes does not tally with the fairytales of the bible. Like muttleylaff has said, stop taking everything in the bible as lIteral. Even the story of job is been argued to be figurative or symbolic.

All fossils determined to be missing links between the ape-like creature or apes and man have been found to be fraudulent. Please research wider.

kkins25:
Aside anatomy and fossil discovery, we have OBSERVED BIOGEOGRAPHICAL influence on the category of organisms we have on the face of the planet. For example, lets take a look at Australia, we have observed that the group of mamals there are marsupial mammals rather than placental as we see in other ecosystem of the world.

Marsupial are so named because they do not hnutire their embryos via the placenta. I dont want to bore you with too much detail so you should do your own investigation when you are ready. I dont want to write lengthy detailed post like muttley and no one would read.

Yes now, as created. What's your point - oh yes, creatures can randomly become other creatures - just give them millions, and billions and trillions and quadrillions of years

kkins25:
Even though, climatic conditions are thesame with other regions with similar environmental conditions. BIOGEOGRAPHICAL distribution of organisms suggests that, [b]organisms can indeed change [/b]into something not entirely but significantly different from it ancestors. We know for sure that Australia was once connected to antartica millions of years ago. We also know that the fauna of Australia most have journeyed across other lands to Australia. However, when Australia became separated and drifted through different climatic conditions these animlas and plants underwent some serious modifications.

Change in size, weight, colouring, the emphasis or de-emphasis of some features, i.e. hairiness. But they remain the same creature.

kkins25:

Another even more prominent, non arguable proof is the damn genetic sequence similarity between all organisms. No need to talk much here.

I've told you before, similarity as an argument can be proof for different positions, it doesn't necessarily certify any one of them.

kkins25:
Now, we have also seen organims that pose as a bridge between one organism to another. For example, salamders look like snakes and lizerds. Duck billed platypus looks like a bird but it is a mammal. It even lays eggs. We previously thouth dolphins were fishes but we were wrong. They are bloody mammals too. Bros if i keep talking, we will not live here
I don dey tire self. Ohh this tablet doesnt allow me display my potentials conveniently. I should boot up my windows. But naaahh..

Bridge ke? The only bridge is new information. Back to my question neophyte. Similarity can just as well be in design. Upgrade your device and your shoddy thinking. Or perhaps evolve it


TV

EmperorHarry:

I can only refer you to comprehensive links and research articles that portray evolution in it's simple forms.Unlike some folks at quora and reddit who are more knowledgeable(by experience in the field and years of research) and are willing to provide a compendious answer to every question and misconceptions you have about the subject,I am only limited to my subjective research (which has changed my perspective and enlightened me remarkably on the subject) and I don't have the mental strength nor fervor to have a long ass discussion in a bid to shed more light on evolutuon.You can learn more by reading through the answers and convos that can be found on the sites including debate.com and medium etc to subjectively understand evolution so you know where the gaps and holes are and how sceptical you should be about them.
The evolution theory becomes complicated when it is adapted to try to explain philosophical questions in a bid to provide a natural and materialistic explanation for everything.This leaves us with more questions than answers with a underwhelming amount of evidence to back up hypotheses postulated.Evolution independent of this as regards to the observation initially documented by Jean Baptiste Lamarck and modified by Darwin is a very plausible theory that is supported by adaptation.It has been promoted from an hypothesis to a scientific theory after billions of dollars and years of research from different scientists in various fields and there is a consensus that it's as valid as the earth is spherical(This doesn't mean it isn't liable to change and can be demoted to a hypothesis in light of new indisputable evidences).
That's just the fun thing about science independent of personal interests and influence.It doesn't have all the answers and a true scientist wouldn't claim to know it all.As vaxx said,science is a work in progress with more questions than answers.
At this point you must prolly be thinking,all this words and yet no answer to your simple question.I admit I'm not even attempting to provide evidences as regards your question but if you find anybody that does,try to be open-minded.I'm only writing this so as to nudge you to find out more about evolution indepthly for yourself before you disapprove of it cos I've been there before.

This is just my opinion and I would entertain any objections and corrections.

As in "if you seek, you will understand" TV01. I must say, it is your religious mind that gets in the way, but first.

I, buda, doff my entire head to my Emperor who reigns!

Now, TV01. We've been crossing paths, but we never spoke. There is one God only. Greetings.

The Religious Mind

The religious mind splits things into either this or that, so its either true or false or its either good or bad or its either right or wrong or its either me or them or its either friend or enemy or its either christian or muslim or atheist or heaven or hell or yoruba igbo hausa fulani devil God, the list goes on, right there from the beginning, the this or the that, forever and ever, getting in the way of actually seeking, as it does.

To the sort of mind in which, the attitude of mine or there's, has been cultivated, the hells the devils, and the thems those others, hardly get much consideration, because, rather than researching those other things, the religious mind assumes a position of knowing about them already even though it knows it doesn't know because it knows how little it has read or researched those irrelevant, so to say, other things, which are hardly worth its time and which it believes will lead it to hell.

The religious mind literally adopts the well taught conundrum presented in the garden at the beginning that goes, "Don't seek knowledge or you will die", which, if taken literally, is literally true, or is it not a conundrum that if one seeks not one shall surely die? Yet the religious mind already knows and indeed you do, so why seek answers to questions you already know the answers to?

Yet, "seek", is what my Emperor is saying to you above. I wonder who else said that and what was meant that one must seek, and if there was a reward to that seeking or to the dying if that be the case.

My Emperor, with this post you reign and buda bows!

vaxx:
EVolution is an open science vis a vis a lab science.

It is one of the most tested scienctifc theory and any idiot refusing it are doing it purposely because it portray the truth they are not willing to accept.

i graduated with a bsc in biology too. Trust me the little i now know of evolution i learnt outside the lecture halls. They dont teach shit in Nigeria unis about evolution becuase the person teaching it doesn't want to stimulate doubt in the religious beliefs of the student which of cause he also subscribes to

Tvo1, nd others, i still dey wait. How did the good old wolf transform into a dog. How does a wolf change to a BULL DOG.?

Sorry. That was meant for there.

kkins25:
Tvo1, nd others, i still dey wait. How did the good old wolf transform into a dog. How does a wolf change to a BULL DOG.?

It's spelt T-V-0-1, incorrectly coded data will not produce the right outcome i.e., it is deleterious. Proper use of the code (language), ensures it is communicable, replicable - I saw your post by random chance

Now to your question. Simples, Wolves and Dogs are the same kind. No "transformation" happened, need happen, or can happen. They are merely different expressions of the same gene set. Bulldogs have an emphasis on certain features due to selective breeding by humans.

Did you really ask that question B.Sc Biology? Which of the UIs did you attend Ife? Lag? Nsukka? ABU?

Now to my question if you will. ".....acquisition of new information"

If na UI of Harvard sef

"Is there no one else"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyBzSx92kdA




TV

budaatum:


The thought of a mind that can hold both must be way beyond your level despite the perils of malnutrition that afflicts those who eat only bread.

Mark my word, The Lord God will bless you with offspring who despite all your efforts to malnourish them will most definitely feed on every Word and evolve beyond your level.

You will remember on that day that buda did tell you so.

The Word of God alone will blow your mind.

"For the word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Hebrew 4:12)

OLAADEGBU:


The Word of God alone will blow your mind.

"For the word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Hebrew 4:12)

It sure will, when proper understood.

TV01:
It's spelt T-V-0-1, incorrectly coded data will not produce the right outcome i.e., it is deleterious. Proper use of the code (language), ensures it is communicable, replicable - I saw your post by random chance

Now to your question. Simples, Wolves and Dogs are the same kind. No "transformation" happened, need happen, or can happen. They are merely different expressions of the same gene set. Bulldogs have an emphasis on certain features due to selective breeding by humans.

Did you really ask that question B.Sc Biology? Which of the UIs did you attend Ife? Lag? Nsukka? ABU?

Now to my question if you will. ".....acquisition of new information"

If na UI of Harvard sef

"Is there no one else"

TV

it seems you are just wasting brandwidth.
Dogs and wolfs are the same "kind" as you say. I can pardon you because you still feed on milk and not meat.

Are you saying you agree that dogs are indeed offshoot of wolves? Or are you saying that dog and wolves were created differently. If so, can you provide reputable and irrefutable evidence that a dog was with adam in that fantasy garden called eden?
I doubt you can. All you would do is use this your non eductative dodge tatics to avoid my questions.

Can you also explain why we have so many races even though we arise from the same two parents. Why are they blacks, whites, brown skins?
If eve was allegedly taken off from the ribs of adam they should share the same genetic make with differences just been in chromosome 23. Which is the gene coding for sex.

Can you explicitly tell us how mr NOAH was able to preserve animals like penguins which live far away from the supposed land of eden believed to ne somewhere in east africa?

Can you tell us how possible it is for a woman virgin to birth a male child? Since jesus was bearing A XY gene make up, who would he look like? His mother? Or his father? Lordreed, loj i think this is where God breaks the law of the universe.
We atheist-ish know better but we want to learn from you since you know better- being a child of god of cause.

kkins25:
Are you saying you agree that dogs are indeed offshoot of wolves? Or are you saying that dog and wolves were created differently. If so, can you provide reputable and irrefutable evidence that a dog was with adam in that fantasy garden called eden? I doubt you can. All you would do is use this your non eductative dodge tatics to avoid my questions.

Wolves and Dogs are of the same kind. The dog/wolf "kind" of creature was created on the 6th day. Before Adam, but on the same day

kkins25:
Can you also explain why we have so many races even though we arise from the same two parents. Why are they blacks, whites, brown skins?.

Because the first pair of "mankind" contained a perfect genome. With the inherent variability we see today. There are no "races", just various expressions of that original genome. Over time emphasis on certain traits becomes increasingly pronounced in localised populations and the original variety becomes increasingly recessive or is simply lost.

I can only speculate as to the colour of our first parents Adam and Eve. I'd wager they were the same colour though .

kkins25:
If eve was allegedly taken off from the ribs of adam they should share the same genetic make with differences just been in chromosome 23. Which is the gene coding for sex.

The question you are better asking your own evolutionary worldview is how would blind forces perfectly construct and time sexually dimorphpous creatures? And why? Given how practically inefficient it is.

kkins25:
Can you explicitly tell us how mr NOAH was able to preserve animals like penguins which live far away from the supposed land of eden believed to ne somewhere in east africa?

God sent them to him. The earth then had different climatic conditions and likely a more unified land mass. The key was in the animals survival after the flood catastrophe. Near perfect genomes would have been robust enough to adapt. Hence hairy elephants. Are you hairy .

kkins25:
Can you tell us how possible it is for a woman virgin to birth a male child? Since jesus was bearing A XY gene make up, who would he look like? His mother? Or his father? Lordreed, loj i think this is where God breaks the law of the universe.

I haven't a clue, but with God all things are possible. God is the lawgiver and He is able to subdue all things according to the word of His power. Jesus looked like His dad of course. You no dey read Bible .

kkins25:
We atheist-ish know better but we want to learn from you since you know better- being a child of god of cause.

No you don't. Study to show thyself approved and avoid things labelled science which in truth are not.

2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:


Seeing how readily and swiftly I have obliged you, will you be answering my question any time soon? ".....acquisition of new information"


TV

kkins25:


ogbenni why dont you tell us why dinosaurs werent saved by mr noah?

Who sold you the lie that dinosaurs weren't saved by Noah's Ark?

kkins25:

Can you tell us how possible it is for a woman virgin to birth a male child? Since jesus was bearing A XY gene make up, who would he look like? His mother? Or his father? Lordreed, loj i think this is where God breaks the law of the universe.
We atheist-ish know better but we want to learn from you since you know better- being a child of god of cause.

I don't want bible stories but if anybody brings bible stories then the evidence must follow. I want people to give me a personally witnessed example of their god breaking the laws of nature.

OLAADEGBU:


Who sold you the lie that dinosaurs weren't saved by Noah's Ark?

Hahahahaha. There are more than 1 million animals and insect species in this world and you want us to believe Noah's boat that is not up to half of the Titanic carried 2million animals and insects plus dinosaurs plus human plus all the food they'd need for 1 year? LMFAO!