How Can There Be Multiple Gods and Multiple Truths?

[sealybobo]

One person's fact is another person's bullshit when it comes to a lot of things.
Don't let it drive you mad.

Well not when it comes to Science. She did good when she posted the definition of theories but there is no evidence to support the theory all life is related. Now.... I supposed you could say that we are related in the sense we are all comprised of the same stuff... carbon, oxygen, potassium, calcium, etc. And we are related in that we're living organisms. We're all made of atoms... We all have DNA... but related in the sense that we all came from the same original single cell? Nope... no evidence to support that.

What's your theory and where's your evidence?

How can I show you evidence for something that never happened? You can't prove a negative. I don't know what to tell ya boob, it's not up to me to show you evidence you're wrong.

Here is evidence you are wrong.

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your homework is to read up on all the words that are highlighted. Once you educate yourself on all those subjects, maybe just maybe then you will understand why and how you are related to a snake frog bird and rat.

Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades and has demonstrated common descent of all life on Earth developing from a last universal ancestor. This evidence constructs the theoretical framework on which evolutionary theory rests, demonstrates that evolution does occur, and is able to show the natural processes that led to the emergence of Earth'sbiodiversity. Additionally, this evidence supports the modern evolutionary synthesis—the current scientific theory that explains how and why life changes over time. Evolutionary biologists document evidence of common descent by making testable predictions, testing hypotheses, and developing theories that illustrate and describe its causes.
Comparison of the DNA genetic sequences of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of DNA sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. Further evidence for common descent comes from genetic detritus such as pseudogenes, regions of DNA that are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration from cumulative mutations.
Fossils are important for estimating when various lineages developed in geologic time. As fossilization is an uncommon occurrence, usually requiring hard body parts and death near a site where sediments are being deposited, the fossil record only provides sparse and intermittent information about the evolution of life. Scientific evidence of organisms prior to the development of hard body parts such as shells, bones and teeth is especially scarce, but exists in the form of ancient microfossils, as well as impressions of various soft-bodied organisms. The comparative study of the anatomyof groups of animals shows structural features that are fundamentally similar or homologous, demonstrating phylogenetic and ancestral relationships with other organisms, most especially when compared with fossils of ancientextinct organisms. Vestigial structures and comparisons in embryonic development are largely a contributing factor in anatomical resemblance in concordance with common descent. Since metabolic processes do not leave fossils, research into the evolution of the basic cellular processes is done largely by comparison of existing organisms' physiology and biochemistry. Many lineages diverged at different stages of development, so it is possible to determine when certain metabolic processes appeared by comparing the traits of the descendants of a common ancestor. Universal biochemical organization and molecular variance patterns in all organisms also show a direct correlation with common descent.
Further evidence comes from the field of biogeography because evolution with common descent provides the best and most thorough explanation for a variety of facts concerning the geographical distribution of plants and animals across the world. This is especially obvious in the field of insular biogeography. Combined with the theory of plate tectonics common descent provides a way to combine facts about the current distribution of species with evidence from the fossil record to provide a logically consistent explanation of how the distribution of living organisms has changed over time.
The development and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria—like the spread of pesticide resistant forms of plants and insects—provides evidence that, evolution due to natural selection, is an ongoing process in the natural world. Alongside this are observed instances of the separation of populations of species into sets of new species (speciation). Speciation has been observed directly and indirectly in the lab and in nature. Multiple forms of such have been described and documented as examples for individual modes of speciation. Furthermore, evidence of common descent extends from direct laboratory experimentation with the selective breeding of organisms—historically and currently—and other controlled experiments involving many of the topics in the article. This article summarizes the varying disciplines that provide the evidence for evolution and the common descent of all life on Earth, accompanied by numerous, specialized examples.

 

[sealybobo]

We have MANY common ancestors with apes and monkeys. You people need to get a better grasp on the theory of evolution. It's obvious that it was never taught to some of you in school. What a shame.

There is some evidence that humans may have evolved from a common Homo ancestor... We are of the Homo genus, along with homo neanderthalensis and homo erectus. THAT is a supportable theory but it conforms to the micro-evolution model that we know happens in nature. That's where a blue fish becomes a yellow fish... a black bear becomes a polar bear... a red fox becomes a silver fox.... a white owl becomes a spotted owl... etc.

But this does not explain where the Homo genus evolved from. There is no scientific evidence to support anything on that. It is theorized we came from Homininis but there is no evidence and as I pointed out about the DNA changes, there is no time for such an evolution to happen. They once believed the Australopithecus was the proverbial "missing link" until they discovered the homo genus existed along the same time.

I just heard the other day that humans and neanderthal mated 50,000 years earlier than we once thought. We know so little

I just heard the other day that ugly women look better when you're drunk.

Does scientific research back up your claim? It does mine.

Humans, Neanderthals interbred thousands of years earlier than first thought, research shows | Fox News

 

[sealybobo]

I just heard the other day that humans and neanderthal mated 50,000 years earlier than we once thought. We know so little

And I doubt we ever mated with neanderthals. If we ever did, it was certainly early on. Neanderthals are in our same genus taxa, Homo. As I have repeatedly said, the only evidence for evolution is within a genera.

Humans, Neanderthals interbred thousands of years earlier than first thought, research shows | Fox News

And this isn't a liberal source. lol. Fox! I'm actually quoting Fox? lol

 

[Boss]

One person's fact is another person's bullshit when it comes to a lot of things.
Don't let it drive you mad.

Well not when it comes to Science. She did good when she posted the definition of theories but there is no evidence to support the theory all life is related. Now.... I supposed you could say that we are related in the sense we are all comprised of the same stuff... carbon, oxygen, potassium, calcium, etc. And we are related in that we're living organisms. We're all made of atoms... We all have DNA... but related in the sense that we all came from the same original single cell? Nope... no evidence to support that.

What's your theory and where's your evidence?

How can I show you evidence for something that never happened? You can't prove a negative. I don't know what to tell ya boob, it's not up to me to show you evidence you're wrong.

Here is evidence you are wrong.

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your homework is to read up on all the words that are highlighted. Once you educate yourself on all those subjects, maybe just maybe then you will understand why and how you are related to a snake frog bird and rat.

Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades and has demonstrated common descent of all life on Earth developing from a last universal ancestor. This evidence constructs the theoretical framework on which evolutionary theory rests, demonstrates that evolution does occur, and is able to show the natural processes that led to the emergence of Earth'sbiodiversity. Additionally, this evidence supports the modern evolutionary synthesis—the current scientific theory that explains how and why life changes over time. Evolutionary biologists document evidence of common descent by making testable predictions, testing hypotheses, and developing theories that illustrate and describe its causes.
Comparison of the DNA genetic sequences of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of DNA sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. Further evidence for common descent comes from genetic detritus such as pseudogenes, regions of DNA that are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration from cumulative mutations.
Fossils are important for estimating when various lineages developed in geologic time. As fossilization is an uncommon occurrence, usually requiring hard body parts and death near a site where sediments are being deposited, the fossil record only provides sparse and intermittent information about the evolution of life. Scientific evidence of organisms prior to the development of hard body parts such as shells, bones and teeth is especially scarce, but exists in the form of ancient microfossils, as well as impressions of various soft-bodied organisms. The comparative study of the anatomyof groups of animals shows structural features that are fundamentally similar or homologous, demonstrating phylogenetic and ancestral relationships with other organisms, most especially when compared with fossils of ancientextinct organisms. Vestigial structures and comparisons in embryonic development are largely a contributing factor in anatomical resemblance in concordance with common descent. Since metabolic processes do not leave fossils, research into the evolution of the basic cellular processes is done largely by comparison of existing organisms' physiology and biochemistry. Many lineages diverged at different stages of development, so it is possible to determine when certain metabolic processes appeared by comparing the traits of the descendants of a common ancestor. Universal biochemical organization and molecular variance patterns in all organisms also show a direct correlation with common descent.
Further evidence comes from the field of biogeography because evolution with common descent provides the best and most thorough explanation for a variety of facts concerning the geographical distribution of plants and animals across the world. This is especially obvious in the field of insular biogeography. Combined with the theory of plate tectonics common descent provides a way to combine facts about the current distribution of species with evidence from the fossil record to provide a logically consistent explanation of how the distribution of living organisms has changed over time.
The development and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria—like the spread of pesticide resistant forms of plants and insects—provides evidence that, evolution due to natural selection, is an ongoing process in the natural world. Alongside this are observed instances of the separation of populations of species into sets of new species (speciation). Speciation has been observed directly and indirectly in the lab and in nature. Multiple forms of such have been described and documented as examples for individual modes of speciation. Furthermore, evidence of common descent extends from direct laboratory experimentation with the selective breeding of organisms—historically and currently—and other controlled experiments involving many of the topics in the article. This article summarizes the varying disciplines that provide the evidence for evolution and the common descent of all life on Earth, accompanied by numerous, specialized examples.

First of all, Wikipedia is hardly some profound scientific source. Anyone can post anything there. What you've posted is crackpot theory that has no basis in support from actual evidence. They fabricate evidence based on things like DNA being similar... oh, that must be evidence that things evolved from common ancestors! This is known as "backwards science" and is largely detrimental to scientific discovery.

Time after time, in the blurb you posted, we read how this theory combined with that theory equals a conclusion. That's not how science works. They mention fossils and the fossil record is no friend to the common ancestor theory because the fossil record shows things coming into existence as suddenly as they disappear. There is no transitional phase where one thing is becoming something else.

 

[sealybobo]

One person's fact is another person's bullshit when it comes to a lot of things.
Don't let it drive you mad.

Well not when it comes to Science. She did good when she posted the definition of theories but there is no evidence to support the theory all life is related. Now.... I supposed you could say that we are related in the sense we are all comprised of the same stuff... carbon, oxygen, potassium, calcium, etc. And we are related in that we're living organisms. We're all made of atoms... We all have DNA... but related in the sense that we all came from the same original single cell? Nope... no evidence to support that.

What's your theory and where's your evidence?

How can I show you evidence for something that never happened? You can't prove a negative. I don't know what to tell ya boob, it's not up to me to show you evidence you're wrong.

The oldest bacteria-like fossils are 3.5 billion years old, so this is the upper estimate for the age of life on the earth. The question is whether at some point before this date a last common ancestor for all forms of life, a "universal ancestor," existed. Over the past 30 years the underlying biochemical unity of all plants, animals and microbes has become increasingly apparent. All organisms share a similar genetic machinery and certain biochemical motifs related to metabolism. It is therefore very likely that there once existed a universal ancestor and, in this sense, all things alive are related to each other. It took more than two billion years for this earliest form of life to evolve into the first eukaryotic cell. This gave rise to the last common ancestor of plants, fungi and animals, which lived some 1.6 billion years ago.
The controversies surrounding biological evolution today reflect the fact that biologists were late in accepting evolutionary thinking. One reason for this is that significant modifications of living things are difficult to observe during a lifetime. Darwin never saw evolution taking place in nature and had to rely on evidence from fossils, as well as plant and animal breeding. His idea that the differences observed within a species are transformed in time into differences between species remained the most plausible theory of biodiversity in his time, but there was an awkward lack of direct observations of this process. Today this situation has changed. There are now a number of very striking accounts of evolution in nature, including exceptional work on the finches of the Galapagos Islands--the same animals that first inspired Darwin's work.How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all?

 

[sealybobo]

One person's fact is another person's bullshit when it comes to a lot of things.
Don't let it drive you mad.

Well not when it comes to Science. She did good when she posted the definition of theories but there is no evidence to support the theory all life is related. Now.... I supposed you could say that we are related in the sense we are all comprised of the same stuff... carbon, oxygen, potassium, calcium, etc. And we are related in that we're living organisms. We're all made of atoms... We all have DNA... but related in the sense that we all came from the same original single cell? Nope... no evidence to support that.

What's your theory and where's your evidence?

How can I show you evidence for something that never happened? You can't prove a negative. I don't know what to tell ya boob, it's not up to me to show you evidence you're wrong.

Here is evidence you are wrong.

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your homework is to read up on all the words that are highlighted. Once you educate yourself on all those subjects, maybe just maybe then you will understand why and how you are related to a snake frog bird and rat.

Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades and has demonstrated common descent of all life on Earth developing from a last universal ancestor. This evidence constructs the theoretical framework on which evolutionary theory rests, demonstrates that evolution does occur, and is able to show the natural processes that led to the emergence of Earth'sbiodiversity. Additionally, this evidence supports the modern evolutionary synthesis—the current scientific theory that explains how and why life changes over time. Evolutionary biologists document evidence of common descent by making testable predictions, testing hypotheses, and developing theories that illustrate and describe its causes.
Comparison of the DNA genetic sequences of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of DNA sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. Further evidence for common descent comes from genetic detritus such as pseudogenes, regions of DNA that are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration from cumulative mutations.
Fossils are important for estimating when various lineages developed in geologic time. As fossilization is an uncommon occurrence, usually requiring hard body parts and death near a site where sediments are being deposited, the fossil record only provides sparse and intermittent information about the evolution of life. Scientific evidence of organisms prior to the development of hard body parts such as shells, bones and teeth is especially scarce, but exists in the form of ancient microfossils, as well as impressions of various soft-bodied organisms. The comparative study of the anatomyof groups of animals shows structural features that are fundamentally similar or homologous, demonstrating phylogenetic and ancestral relationships with other organisms, most especially when compared with fossils of ancientextinct organisms. Vestigial structures and comparisons in embryonic development are largely a contributing factor in anatomical resemblance in concordance with common descent. Since metabolic processes do not leave fossils, research into the evolution of the basic cellular processes is done largely by comparison of existing organisms' physiology and biochemistry. Many lineages diverged at different stages of development, so it is possible to determine when certain metabolic processes appeared by comparing the traits of the descendants of a common ancestor. Universal biochemical organization and molecular variance patterns in all organisms also show a direct correlation with common descent.
Further evidence comes from the field of biogeography because evolution with common descent provides the best and most thorough explanation for a variety of facts concerning the geographical distribution of plants and animals across the world. This is especially obvious in the field of insular biogeography. Combined with the theory of plate tectonics common descent provides a way to combine facts about the current distribution of species with evidence from the fossil record to provide a logically consistent explanation of how the distribution of living organisms has changed over time.
The development and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria—like the spread of pesticide resistant forms of plants and insects—provides evidence that, evolution due to natural selection, is an ongoing process in the natural world. Alongside this are observed instances of the separation of populations of species into sets of new species (speciation). Speciation has been observed directly and indirectly in the lab and in nature. Multiple forms of such have been described and documented as examples for individual modes of speciation. Furthermore, evidence of common descent extends from direct laboratory experimentation with the selective breeding of organisms—historically and currently—and other controlled experiments involving many of the topics in the article. This article summarizes the varying disciplines that provide the evidence for evolution and the common descent of all life on Earth, accompanied by numerous, specialized examples.

First of all, Wikipedia is hardly some profound scientific source. Anyone can post anything there. What you've posted is crackpot theory that has no basis in support from actual evidence. They fabricate evidence based on things like DNA being similar... oh, that must be evidence that things evolved from common ancestors! This is known as "backwards science" and is largely detrimental to scientific discovery.

Time after time, in the blurb you posted, we read how this theory combined with that theory equals a conclusion. That's not how science works. They mention fossils and the fossil record is no friend to the common ancestor theory because the fossil record shows things coming into existence as suddenly as they disappear. There is no transitional phase where one thing is becoming something else.

Add all the evidence up and it suggest all living things are related. You can disagree with science but I'm going to disagree with little old you.

 

[sealybobo]

One person's fact is another person's bullshit when it comes to a lot of things.
Don't let it drive you mad.

Well not when it comes to Science. She did good when she posted the definition of theories but there is no evidence to support the theory all life is related. Now.... I supposed you could say that we are related in the sense we are all comprised of the same stuff... carbon, oxygen, potassium, calcium, etc. And we are related in that we're living organisms. We're all made of atoms... We all have DNA... but related in the sense that we all came from the same original single cell? Nope... no evidence to support that.

What's your theory and where's your evidence?

How can I show you evidence for something that never happened? You can't prove a negative. I don't know what to tell ya boob, it's not up to me to show you evidence you're wrong.

Here is evidence you are wrong.

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your homework is to read up on all the words that are highlighted. Once you educate yourself on all those subjects, maybe just maybe then you will understand why and how you are related to a snake frog bird and rat.

Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades and has demonstrated common descent of all life on Earth developing from a last universal ancestor. This evidence constructs the theoretical framework on which evolutionary theory rests, demonstrates that evolution does occur, and is able to show the natural processes that led to the emergence of Earth'sbiodiversity. Additionally, this evidence supports the modern evolutionary synthesis—the current scientific theory that explains how and why life changes over time. Evolutionary biologists document evidence of common descent by making testable predictions, testing hypotheses, and developing theories that illustrate and describe its causes.
Comparison of the DNA genetic sequences of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of DNA sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. Further evidence for common descent comes from genetic detritus such as pseudogenes, regions of DNA that are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration from cumulative mutations.
Fossils are important for estimating when various lineages developed in geologic time. As fossilization is an uncommon occurrence, usually requiring hard body parts and death near a site where sediments are being deposited, the fossil record only provides sparse and intermittent information about the evolution of life. Scientific evidence of organisms prior to the development of hard body parts such as shells, bones and teeth is especially scarce, but exists in the form of ancient microfossils, as well as impressions of various soft-bodied organisms. The comparative study of the anatomyof groups of animals shows structural features that are fundamentally similar or homologous, demonstrating phylogenetic and ancestral relationships with other organisms, most especially when compared with fossils of ancientextinct organisms. Vestigial structures and comparisons in embryonic development are largely a contributing factor in anatomical resemblance in concordance with common descent. Since metabolic processes do not leave fossils, research into the evolution of the basic cellular processes is done largely by comparison of existing organisms' physiology and biochemistry. Many lineages diverged at different stages of development, so it is possible to determine when certain metabolic processes appeared by comparing the traits of the descendants of a common ancestor. Universal biochemical organization and molecular variance patterns in all organisms also show a direct correlation with common descent.
Further evidence comes from the field of biogeography because evolution with common descent provides the best and most thorough explanation for a variety of facts concerning the geographical distribution of plants and animals across the world. This is especially obvious in the field of insular biogeography. Combined with the theory of plate tectonics common descent provides a way to combine facts about the current distribution of species with evidence from the fossil record to provide a logically consistent explanation of how the distribution of living organisms has changed over time.
The development and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria—like the spread of pesticide resistant forms of plants and insects—provides evidence that, evolution due to natural selection, is an ongoing process in the natural world. Alongside this are observed instances of the separation of populations of species into sets of new species (speciation). Speciation has been observed directly and indirectly in the lab and in nature. Multiple forms of such have been described and documented as examples for individual modes of speciation. Furthermore, evidence of common descent extends from direct laboratory experimentation with the selective breeding of organisms—historically and currently—and other controlled experiments involving many of the topics in the article. This article summarizes the varying disciplines that provide the evidence for evolution and the common descent of all life on Earth, accompanied by numerous, specialized examples.

First of all, Wikipedia is hardly some profound scientific source. Anyone can post anything there. What you've posted is crackpot theory that has no basis in support from actual evidence. They fabricate evidence based on things like DNA being similar... oh, that must be evidence that things evolved from common ancestors! This is known as "backwards science" and is largely detrimental to scientific discovery.

Time after time, in the blurb you posted, we read how this theory combined with that theory equals a conclusion. That's not how science works. They mention fossils and the fossil record is no friend to the common ancestor theory because the fossil record shows things coming into existence as suddenly as they disappear. There is no transitional phase where one thing is becoming something else.

Can you spot a flaw in this wiki article? I mean, one that you believe science didn't actually say? Are you suggest someone made up the stuff you are reading in wiki?

I think it's more you don't like what the facts are so you are just challenging the source.

 

[Boss]

I just heard the other day that humans and neanderthal mated 50,000 years earlier than we once thought. We know so little

And I doubt we ever mated with neanderthals. If we ever did, it was certainly early on. Neanderthals are in our same genus taxa, Homo. As I have repeatedly said, the only evidence for evolution is within a genera.

Humans, Neanderthals interbred thousands of years earlier than first thought, research shows | Fox News

And this isn't a liberal source. lol. Fox! I'm actually quoting Fox? lol

Hey, I already said it was a theory. You're not proving any point here. I personally don't believe the theory but it's possible homo sapiens and homo neanderthalasis interbred early on... they're in the same genera. However, again... if this amazing and incredible explosion of evolution created all the billions and billions of life forms, it's a little strange that the two couldn't interbreed later down the line because they had grown too incompatible, even within the same genus.

See... what you're lacking, is evidence of one genus species becoming an entirely new genus of it's own. You don't have that because it doesn't happen.

 

[Boss]

Add all the evidence up and it suggest all living things are related. You can disagree with science but I'm going to disagree with little old you.

Yep, they've been SUGGESTING this for years.
They just haven't proved it. Neither has little old you.

 

[sealybobo]

I just heard the other day that humans and neanderthal mated 50,000 years earlier than we once thought. We know so little

And I doubt we ever mated with neanderthals. If we ever did, it was certainly early on. Neanderthals are in our same genus taxa, Homo. As I have repeatedly said, the only evidence for evolution is within a genera.

Humans, Neanderthals interbred thousands of years earlier than first thought, research shows | Fox News

And this isn't a liberal source. lol. Fox! I'm actually quoting Fox? lol

Hey, I already said it was a theory. You're not proving any point here. I personally don't believe the theory but it's possible homo sapiens and homo neanderthalasis interbred early on... they're in the same genera. However, again... if this amazing and incredible explosion of evolution created all the billions and billions of life forms, it's a little strange that the two couldn't interbreed later down the line because they had grown too incompatible, even within the same genus.

See... what you're lacking, is evidence of one genus species becoming an entirely new genus of it's own. You don't have that because it doesn't happen.

It happened too far back to prove but add up all the evidence and it suggests we all share a common ancestor.

Do you want to see me turn a butterfly into a snake?

 

[sealybobo]

Add all the evidence up and it suggest all living things are related. You can disagree with science but I'm going to disagree with little old you.

Yep, they've been SUGGESTING this for years.
They just haven't proved it. Neither has little old you.

What are you suggesting? Please, I've asked you several times for your alternative theory.

 

[Boss]

All organisms share a similar genetic machinery and certain biochemical motifs related to metabolism. It is therefore very likely that there once existed a universal ancestor and, in this sense, all things alive are related to each other.

Of course all living things share similar genetic machinery. That isn't proof of anything. All living things share the same elements found all over the universe. All life is carbon based. I mean... what the hell does that prove? NADDA!

 

[Boss]

What are you suggesting? Please, I've asked you several times for your alternative theory.

My theory is something other than everything sprang forth from some common single cell organism.

 

[sealybobo]

All organisms share a similar genetic machinery and certain biochemical motifs related to metabolism. It is therefore very likely that there once existed a universal ancestor and, in this sense, all things alive are related to each other.

Of course all living things share similar genetic machinery. That isn't proof of anything. All living things share the same elements found all over the universe. All life is carbon based. I mean... what the hell does that prove? NADDA!

Where did:

All the different mammals come from?
Birds?
Reptiles and Amphibians?

First, do you think birds started on land? How did that happen? Did two adult birds have babies? How did the two adult birds get here? Who were their parents?

 

[Boss]

It happened too far back to prove but add up all the evidence and it suggests we all share a common ancestor.

Do you want to see me turn a butterfly into a snake?

What it add up to is, you can't prove jack shit.

I want to see evidence of one genus species evolving into a new genus. According to biology and DNA, that can't happen naturally or artificially because the mitochondria are incompatible.

 

[sealybobo]

What are you suggesting? Please, I've asked you several times for your alternative theory.

My theory is something other than everything sprang forth from some common single cell organism.

Maybe when the first underwater creature(s) crawled out of the soup, some developed into birds and some developed into mammals. One thing we know, they both crawled out of the water and once were not mammals or birds.

So what reason do you have for thinking a different creature crawled out of the water and became human and a completely different creature crawled out of the water and became birds? Why couldn't it be the same creature crawled out and split?

So did a bear, giraffe, dog, cat, bird, toad, tiger, elephant fish all crawl out? We have how many different species on earth? Did that many species crawl out independently and become their own species? Science doesn't think so so why do you?

Why does it bother you that you are related to all other living things?

 

[sealybobo]

It happened too far back to prove but add up all the evidence and it suggests we all share a common ancestor.

Do you want to see me turn a butterfly into a snake?

What it add up to is, you can't prove jack shit.

I want to see evidence of one genus species evolving into a new genus. According to biology and DNA, that can't happen naturally or artificially because the mitochondria are incompatible.

Do you have a link that shows the scientific community saying that biology and DNA say one genus species can't evolve into a new genus?

 

[sealybobo]

It happened too far back to prove but add up all the evidence and it suggests we all share a common ancestor.

Do you want to see me turn a butterfly into a snake?

What it add up to is, you can't prove jack shit.

I want to see evidence of one genus species evolving into a new genus. According to biology and DNA, that can't happen naturally or artificially because the mitochondria are incompatible.

So your theory is god did it, right?

 

[Boss]

All organisms share a similar genetic machinery and certain biochemical motifs related to metabolism. It is therefore very likely that there once existed a universal ancestor and, in this sense, all things alive are related to each other.

Of course all living things share similar genetic machinery. That isn't proof of anything. All living things share the same elements found all over the universe. All life is carbon based. I mean... what the hell does that prove? NADDA!

Where did:

All the different mammals come from?
Birds?
Reptiles and Amphibians?

First, do you think birds started on land? How did that happen? Did two adult birds have babies? How did the two adult birds get here? Who were their parents?

I can't answer your questions because there is no science to support any theory. Sorry. Just being completely honest about it. I can tell you what my opinion is based on my own scientific knowledge... is that what you want?

I think, given the enormous amount of inter-dependence we find in life, many things had to come into existence at the same exact time. Because the whole "circle of life" had to be there in order to sustain itself. Too many things rely on other things. Symbiotic relationships.

 

[Boss]

Do you have a link that shows the scientific community saying that biology and DNA say one genus species can't evolve into a new genus?

No... the scientific community isn't big on saying things can't happen.