by JanH 114 Replies latest jw friends
dubla,
If you didn't miss the point of the analogy, then you don't really understand what evolution is about, do you?
Explain to me why a parent species should necessarily be extinct while a parent need not be dead.
And, in a sense you can say evolution happens when someone or something is born.
- Jan
If you didn't miss the point of the analogy
i didnt miss it, i just think its faulty.
Explain to me why a parent species should necessarily be extinct while a parent need not be dead.
ive already stated that comparing evolution to a child being born holds no water with me personally. so no explanation needed.
in a sense....
three words that wont get you very far when starting out an argumentative statement with them.
aa
Only insofar as the periodic table was created by humans as a representation of the elementary blocks of the physical world, and humans are of course life.
Duh. I am talking about the ELEMENTS themselves, not the identifying/naming of them and charting them Jan. What the heck kind of response is this? You said it yourself. THE ELEMENTARY BULIDING BLOCKS. The building blocks ARE COMPLEX.
Oh yeah baby...these complex BUILDING BLOCKS, they just made themselves now didn't they? POOF! there it is. POOF! there it is.
You are simply wrong in saying that all life form only live off organic material. Restating nonsense does not make it less so.
You know Jan, HERE's A LOVELY FACT FOR YOUR FAT EGO: EVERYTHING eats SOMETHING. What's eating you?
Your statement above is as good as the best WT writers in Brooklyn. Claiming something to be wrong with NO FACTS to back it up. It's wrong well, er...well just because you say so HUH? Yeah OK. I better go hide, Jan has spoken.
New sources of nutrition provides new evolutionary niches for life to exploit.
In Jan's make believe world maybe. There is NOTHING new under the sun friend. Evolutionary riches for life to exploit? What the HELL is that?
In a world full of life, naturally species will find ways to use all these rich sources of nutrition.
Ahh, is it me? Or is this pure BS?
The earliest life forms did not have this luxury, so they lived off the basic materials than they first originated in, and non-organic food.
Go back to the laboratory Simon. You're off in the world of the unfactual right now.
This is just ignorant nonsense.
Really? I have yet to see you submit ONE SCIENTIFIC fact. All your doing is spouting self made OPINIONS supported by Jan's keyboard and mouse.
First, bacteria was not the earliest life.
Now I know you're an imbecile.
OK BOZO the clown, a FACT FOR YOU: From MS ENCARTA encyclopedia:
"Bacteria inhabited Earth long before human beings or other living things appeared. The earliest bacteria that scientists have discovered, in fossil remains in rocks, probably lived about 3.5 billion years ago.
OK Jan the astute scientist, did you get THAT FACT SPORT?? Good. Now. If you wanna play debate pomegranate, do yourself a favor. KNOW WHAT THE F*$K you're talking about OK?
Second, the bacteria's role in decay does not make it an enemy of evolution. Quite the opposite. You seem to assume some teleological evolution, which is not what scientists do.
See the the above. You are talking out your anus.
Dubla,
ive already stated that comparing evolution to a child being born holds no water with me personally. so no explanation needed.
I accept your capitulation.
And yes, a child being born is evolution. When one is born, the species is evolving.
- Jan
And yes, a child being born is evolution. When one is born, the species is evolving.
There is not ONE scientist that will agree with this grade school absurdity.
When one is BORN, the species is INCREASING not evolving...
<shaking head, laughing in amazament>
pom,
The building blocks ARE COMPLEX.
You have no clue what a periodic table is, do you?
From MS ENCARTA encyclopedia:
Encarta is wrong. Bacteria is far too complex to have evolved through abiogenesis. The earliest life forms, much earlier than these and now long lost, were much simpler.
The rest of your rants merits no response. Get yourself an education.
- Jan
You are a BOZO!! At least you make me LAUGH MY ASS OFF!!
Here ya go Jan the bogus science man - from Berkeley University:
It may seem surprising that bacteria can leave fossils at all. However, one particular group of bacteria, the cyanobacteria or "blue-green algae," have left a fossil record that extends far back into the Precambrian - the oldest cyanobacteria-like fossils known are nearly 3.5 billion years old, among the oldest fossils currently known.
Did you get that Dr. Suess?
Edited by - pomegranate on 5 August 2002 15:55:13
Make sure ya click da PRETTY BLUE link to get you educated OTAY?
pommoron,
When one is BORN, the species is INCREASING not evolving...
Ohhh, so that's what they taught you at the window cleaner university?
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." (Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974)
Personally, I can only think of one -- extremely theorietical -- instance where the birth of a child would not make evolution happen, and that is where the gene pool is 100% uniform. Now, that is something that would never happen in real life.
Thus, when a child is born, evolution happens. QED.
- Jan
Edited by - JanH on 5 August 2002 16:22:24
