Active Users:213 Time:30/04/2024 12:43:32 AM
So? My point is that liberals would not allow you to teach that in a public school Cannoli Send a noteboard - 15/06/2015 01:43:43 PM

View original post
View original post
View original postChimps have virtually identical DNA to us. It is more than just looking a lot like us. We can see a time when neither chimps nor humans existed then a common ancestor then steps were started looking less and less like them. We would see this strong resemblance and change overtime with DNA but DNA strongly support the fossil evidence. This is no competing scientific theory or reasonable explanation just a lot of silliness that no would believe except for the fact that it was created to support the creation myth their own personal religion teaches.
And you think evolution was not embraced to fill the lack of a creation myth that undermined peoples' own personal lifestyle and rejection of religious restrictions on behavior? The first people to accept Darwin's theory were not paleontologists or relevant scientists, they were robber barons and wealthy tycoons, and degenerate people of influence, who faced rebuke for their public moral shortcomings, but lacked the authority of the universally accepted religious standards of behavior. The Rockefellers and their ilk were overjoyed, because here was an idea that justified them, with its fundamental tautology of "survival of the fittest" that apparently blessed their financial success as fitness.
Who thus needed no vindication by Darwin. You are welcome and encouraged to "fix" that but, again, the obstacle is not LIBERALS.

By virtually requiring a common ancestor for ALL terrestrial life, RNA and DNA almost irrefutably support evolution. They are no simple monolithic element of inorganic nature that species can discover and ingest or absorb, but complex assemblies found IN ALL SPECIES (viruses included) yet NOWHERE ELSE. Inheritance is thus the only reasonable explanation* for all places R/DNA does and does not occur, which mandates a universal common ancestor for all species (excepting that ancestor.) All that applies to an even greater degree with genes exclusively composed of R/DNA. The curiosity is that the same observed facts almost mandating a universal common ancestor ALSO almost mandate the first universal common ancestor began supernaturally:

R/DNA NEVER arises in non-living matter, and each species has R/DNA in common with others. Proteins and, later, amino acids have been synthesized, and more recently found naturally present in inert matter, but no more: Individual amino acids, not thousands or MILLIONS of them organized, bound and twisted together in a long, tight and self-replicating spiral. Yet the first universal common ancestor could not have inherited R/DNA (else it would not be first) nor had it transferred from another species (else it would have had no pre-existing R/DNA into which to incorporate new R/DNA.) So the first universal common ancestors R/DNA must have originated in it, which is impossible for inert matter, and all events beyond the natural are SUPERnatural by definition.



*Even mere gene transference (i.e. not inheritance) only occurs between PRE-EXISTING R/DNA structures: Humans can incorporate R/DNA from a virus, but a rock or glass of water cannot.


Cannoli
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
Reply to message
Can liberals all stop their posturing about adhering to science? - 05/06/2015 12:04:13 AM 1169 Views
It's not really a difficult concept to understand, man - 05/06/2015 02:23:34 PM 599 Views
Re: It's not really a difficult concept to understand, man - 05/06/2015 09:05:03 PM 598 Views
It's so difficult to parse out your trolling sometimes - 07/06/2015 02:37:11 PM 569 Views
Some people feel like they are women, though born as men. So they take steps to live - 05/06/2015 04:47:14 PM 588 Views
I agree with you in theory - 05/06/2015 09:43:43 PM 473 Views
I think it's okay to be weirded out by it - 08/06/2015 10:28:02 PM 603 Views
gender issues aside the evidence of evolution is undeniable to the extreme - 05/06/2015 08:37:37 PM 469 Views
Well then why do scientists feel the need to make up their own fake evidence? - 05/06/2015 09:16:40 PM 515 Views
The specifics and our understanding always changes - 05/06/2015 09:50:39 PM 521 Views
"A better fit" doesn't sound much like testable hypotheses and observable data - 06/06/2015 12:38:49 AM 656 Views
Science and absolute, unquestioned fact... - 06/06/2015 11:16:10 AM 532 Views
The theory is refined that is all - 08/06/2015 07:11:40 PM 509 Views
We can find Naederthal DNA in modern humans - 08/06/2015 07:01:01 PM 464 Views
I am 3% Neanderthal! My 23andMe Test told me so!! *NM* - 08/06/2015 08:07:35 PM 298 Views
If thought about doing that - 09/06/2015 02:31:11 PM 468 Views
We share 1/3 of the DNA of flowers. Where are those in our ancestral tree? - 09/06/2015 02:20:46 PM 493 Views
Of course they are in our family tree - 09/06/2015 02:39:18 PM 505 Views
Re: Of course they are in our family tree - 13/06/2015 05:29:16 PM 455 Views
Americas (Christian?!) "accepted religious standards" can and have been changed to vindicate robbers - 15/06/2015 03:37:12 AM 479 Views
So? My point is that liberals would not allow you to teach that in a public school - 15/06/2015 01:43:43 PM 418 Views
...I'm confused, are you claiming that no real fossils have been found? - 07/06/2015 02:41:12 PM 484 Views
And they prove what, exactly? - 07/06/2015 11:24:43 PM 593 Views
Er, well yeah, that's the point- Scientific knowledge keeps growing and challenging itself - 08/06/2015 02:58:26 PM 532 Views
It's not at all the same. - 09/06/2015 02:53:06 PM 497 Views
I would not have expected to see you adhere to a scientist position - 07/06/2015 03:06:11 AM 547 Views
I am not; I am criticizing the people who apply it inconsistently - 07/06/2015 11:14:05 PM 581 Views
Perhaps she does not believe in hell - 08/06/2015 12:55:50 PM 406 Views
can republicans stop their posturing about adhering to morality? - 08/06/2015 09:17:16 PM 507 Views
My own homosexual inclinations would not constitute hypocrisy in opposing deviant behavior - 09/06/2015 02:14:56 PM 535 Views
"… in the latter times some shall depart from the faith… speaking lies in hypocrisy…" - 15/06/2015 03:36:08 AM 554 Views
See - more liberal doublespeak - 15/06/2015 03:30:57 PM 515 Views
“Who are you calling, ‘you people’?! - 17/06/2015 10:08:32 AM 461 Views
Some other stuff - 15/06/2015 03:45:59 PM 544 Views
See what you (and the devil, of course) made me do? - 17/06/2015 10:16:35 AM 510 Views
I find this entire discussion absolutely hilarious. - 15/06/2015 04:19:31 PM 418 Views
well I am sucb a died in the wool liberal I just cant help myself - 15/06/2015 06:25:57 PM 392 Views
Yeah, you're to the Left of Trotsky. *NM* - 15/06/2015 07:31:28 PM 244 Views
...what? Attacking points is pretty much what debate IS. - 16/06/2015 04:29:05 AM 446 Views
No... - 17/06/2015 08:00:57 PM 434 Views
OK? - 18/06/2015 04:03:32 AM 463 Views
duplicate post, ignore *NM* - 18/06/2015 04:03:47 AM 325 Views
Oh, I'm sorry. - 18/06/2015 09:05:42 PM 526 Views
A thesis delayed till the SECOND paragraph is, at best, misplaced - 20/06/2015 09:37:36 AM 505 Views
Bah, damn you for good points! - 21/06/2015 09:33:49 PM 521 Views
Oh, man, been there, done that, got the T-shirt - 22/06/2015 01:26:13 AM 447 Views
Heheh, thank you for understanding. - 22/06/2015 09:23:11 PM 436 Views
Re: Oh, I'm sorry. - 20/06/2015 04:44:24 PM 565 Views
You're missing my whole issue with labeling. - 21/06/2015 09:32:36 PM 510 Views
This might be a complete non-sequitur, but... - 21/06/2015 10:38:19 PM 403 Views
I'm a hardcore lurker... - 22/06/2015 09:26:59 PM 355 Views
Cool. - 22/06/2015 10:14:45 PM 453 Views
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JFfN5pKzFU *NM* - 15/06/2015 05:01:30 PM 249 Views

Reply to Message