Evolution, why us?

[roadrunner]

Sorry, got distracted elsewhere

The old nature-vs-nurture..?? It's a behavioral trait and if it was learned & harmful at the same time, those genes would have been taken out of the gene pool in no time and the individuals would stop "learning" that response - have they? No..

Behavioural traits aren't genetic. They're just learnt behaviours. If the behaviour is both learned & harmful, the organism would stop doing it.

Survival just implies more reproduction and more reproduction just implies survival. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. What is the point behind it, from an evolutionary perspective?

Well, no. In non-senescent species, the organisms live for very long and can reproduce throughout most of their existence. If humans were living immortally, then eventually they would become so full of mutations that you would be introducing many mutations into the gene pool.

One consequence would be that some of the good mutations would get wiped out if the bad ones are linked to the good ones.

So survival is not really all about reproduction, it's about healthy reproduction.

No, they would just be introducing a lot of genetic variation - the harmful of which would be selected against. The mutations of one organism do not affect the healthiness of the other organism. The harmfully mutant one is just taken out of the gene pool.

The problem is that you would create a bad mutation in Organism X. Organism X then reproduces with Organism Y (unmutated). Offspring have one allele mutated (2 are needed). Say 4 offspring are produced, 2 may have the mutation. It passes to their offspring, and eventually it becomes multiplied up. Eventually many offspring are going to have the double mutated allele. This will cause a problem. It is nature's way of preventing such a situation from arising.

How so? If mutations (variation), heritability, reproduction and selection are all that is needed for evolution, how can too big of a variety be bad? Chances are you get a lotta bad genes, chances are you get a lotta good genes as well - the bad ones are gonna be selected against anyways so there would more good ones.

I'm not sure. But perhaps it is more likely to have a bad mutation occurring than a good mutation.

The reason might be the specificity of DNA.

But, in that scenario, the young are selected against, not the adults. And the population would go extinct. The limiting factor here was not the population size but the limited resources. Natural selection has no sense of population size.

Yes, alright. The number of offspring will increase, but the number of healthy offspring will probably decrease.

Let's agree on that for argument's sake. Given that by that logic senescence only exists to account for limited resources, why then is there senescence in human beings now?

Because we've only recently developed supermarkets and the ability to shuffle goods around.

We may eventually become non senescent if this was the driving factor behind the evolution of human sensescence.

Sexual maturity & reproductive fitness and senescence are not the same thing. If anything, lack of sexual fitness is a result of senescence and not vice versa.

I would agree. So this might reduce the number of mutations and control population numbers.

[Alchemist]

Sorry, got distracted elsewhere

[/COLOR]

Behavioural traits aren't genetic. They're just learnt behaviours. If the behaviour is both learned & harmful, the organism would stop doing it.

LOL

Stop talking out of your behind.
Please. Troll. Educate. Yourself.

There is a whole science of Behaviour genetics ...and you are like "oh its all learned".

How about the case of monozygotic twins who are separated at birth but only reunited later to find out that they are the same!

Here is an example:

http://www.longwood.k12.ny.us/lhs/science/mos/twins/Jimtwins.html

Well, no. In non-senescent species, the organisms live for very long and can reproduce throughout most of their existence. If humans were living immortally, then eventually they would become so full of mutations that you would be introducing many mutations into the gene pool.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA H

HAHAHAHAHHAHA


SOOOO FUNNY!

You are such a failure!

OMG!

WAit... I am still laughing...


AHAHHAHA

Somebody out there... Please tell me I read this wrong. Did this guy just say that mutations accumulated during one's life time will get passed down?

HAHAHAHAHAHHA


There is something called MITOSIS


And there is something TOTALLY DIFFERENT called MEIOSIS.

Learn the difference.

You obviously failed biology class.

And what the heck is "non senescent"?

You consider fungus to be immortal? LOL
So I guess the coral reef is also "immortal"?
this half centimeter creature called "immortal jellyfish" is a hydrozoa, that means ..that is not technically a "jellyfish" but a colony of individual cells.
So in reality, it is not a "non scenescent organism"... someone calls it an immortal jellyfish and you have fantasies of immortality.

One consequence would be that some of the good mutations would get wiped out if the bad ones are linked to the good ones.

can you give ONE example of a good mutation?

I dare you.

I will leave this forum if you do. I swear.

(oh and it can't be considered "good" because of "bad conditions"..it must be good of it's own

So survival is not really all about reproduction, it's about healthy reproduction.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

The problem is that you would create a bad mutation in Organism X. Organism X then reproduces with Organism Y (unmutated). Offspring have one allele mutated (2 are needed). Say 4 offspring are produced, 2 may have the mutation. It passes to their offspring, and eventually it becomes multiplied up. Eventually many offspring are going to have the double mutated allele. This will cause a problem. It is nature's way of preventing such a situation from arising.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

DUDE DUDEEEEEEEEEE

You cannot pass down your mutations! Repeat after me - MIEO-SIS. Germ line. Is. DISTINCT.

I'm not sure. But perhaps it is more likely to have a bad mutation occurring than a good mutation.

The reason might be the specificity of DNA.

duh...

Yes, alright. The number of offspring will increase, but the number of healthy offspring will probably decrease.

probably ... I will be bit by a radioactive spider and start climbing walls and shooting web from my forearm...and then have children with the same ability...probably....NOT

Because we've only recently developed supermarkets and the ability to shuffle goods around.

WHAT?

We may eventually become non senescent if this was the driving factor behind the evolution of human sensescence.

Wishful thinking?

I would agree. So this might reduce the number of mutations and control population numbers.

Thank you professor TrollRunner.

Perhaps you should present this thesis of yours to the Academe of Science. You are the only person to have said this so far. DUDE. You just made an awesome discovery. What are you doing here? Go get your Ph.D in biology. I think we have to rewrite our biology books now....

[Alchemist]

Sorry mayana

I just couldn't help my self

hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


that made my day.

[roadrunner]

The juvenile expression of excitement, the intelligence of a hummingbird, I can see why most internet sites rejected you yet you managed to find some solace here

Go read about senescence and non-senescence and the problems with replication so that you may further yourself.

[Alchemist]

The juvenile expression of excitement, the intelligence of a hummingbird, I can see why most internet sites rejected you yet you managed to find some solace here

Go read about senescence and non-senescence and the problems with replication so that you may further yourself.

What's this ...twitching?

go pass your grade 9 biology class then we'll talk ...

[Mayana]

Roadrunner,

No worries, bro, you don't need to explain every delay in your answer - we all have other commitments, I am aware.

Actually, behavior does go past psychology and can be genetically programmed. There is no biological Tabula Rasa. Puppies are born and know how to behave to survive, it is heritable.

In terms of reproduction in a potentially immortal human being - harmful mutations are taken out from the gene pool. If you have a harmful mutation that causes you to walk funny, you're gonna walk into a wall and be taken out of the gene pool, resulting in your genes not being passed down. And in case they are passed on, your children are gonna walk into walls and trees to the point where they're gonna do so before sexual maturity, preventing them form passing on the harmfully mutated funnywalk genes. This is why the most severe genetic diseases are fatal at a very early age - so that the harmful gene isn't spread and passed on.

The genetic flawlessness of offspring does not depend on the resources they are conceived under. If two birdies are starving but they can make a baby birdie and the babybirdy can fly away and live in a different environment, chances are pretty darn good that babybirdy is gonna grow up in that environment and and reproduce - no matter the resources provided by the environment it was conceived in. So the argument of "bad mutations probably being more probable and unhealthy offspring probably being more common in an environment with potentially immortal organisms" does not work - because, like I said, harmful mutations are selected against and will be taken out of the gene pool.

Little Jonny walking into trees because he has a funnywalk disease is not going to affect little Edward and little Edward's reproductive success. Little Jonny's funnywalk genes are going to be taken out of the gene pool so there is no more funnywalk people in the population and Edward is gonna keep reproducing as long as he can.


At the end of all this, my questions still stand: How do biology and the theory of evolution account for senescence? Why are we born just to grow old and die?

[Alchemist]

Excuse me troll runner...

I know you are going to screw this up anyway. So I am going to play devil's advocate here and do this for you because I have to shut you all up here...otherwise I won't be satisfied with myself.

Roadrunner,

No worries, bro, you don't need to explain every delay in your answer - we all have other commitments, I am aware.

Actually, behavior does go past psychology and can be genetically programmed. There is no biological Tabula Rasa. Puppies are born and know how to behave to survive, it is heritable.

In terms of reproduction in a potentially immortal human being - harmful mutations are taken out from the gene pool. If you have a harmful mutation that causes you to walk funny, you're gonna walk into a wall and be taken out of the gene pool, resulting in your genes not being passed down. And in case they are passed on, your children are gonna walk into walls and trees to the point where they're gonna do so before sexual maturity, preventing them form passing on the harmfully mutated funnywalk genes. This is why the most severe genetic diseases are fatal at a very early age- so that the harmful gene isn't spread and passed on.

The genetic flawlessness of offspring does not depend on the resources they are conceived under. If two birdies are starving but they can make a baby birdie and the babybirdy can fly away and live in a different environment, chances are pretty darn good that babybirdy is gonna grow up in that environment and and reproduce - no matter the resources provided by the environment it was conceived in. So the argument of "bad mutations probably being more probable and unhealthy offspring probably being more common in an environment with potentially immortal organisms" does not work - because, like I said, harmful mutations are selected against and will be taken out of the gene pool.

Little Jonny walking into trees because he has a funnywalk disease is not going to affect little Edward and little Edward's reproductive success. Little Jonny's funnywalk genes are going to be taken out of the gene pool so there is no more funnywalk people in the population and Edward is gonna keep reproducing as long as he can.


At the end of all this, my questions still stand: How do biology and the theory of evolution account for senescence? Why are we born just to grow old and die?

Your "theory"..or rather explanation is severly flawed.

If what you say is true then after millions years of "selection" no genetic disease would persist. However, what we find is that over the course of history, the genetic data of every organisms DOES produce MISTAKES. This is because the replication of DNA is not 100% exact. And over the course of time we have an increase in RECESSIVE traits. If what you said was true, then diseases like hemophilia, sickel cell, multiple sclerosis, cystic fibrosis, etc etc etc would have been weeded out a long time.
It seems that you are rehashing the evolutionary explanation taught to you in class to discredit the theory of evolution, ney..biology as a science. But you cannot succeed at this. Even if we use another selective criteria, other than nature, sexual selection...then if it were true that women are not attracted to bald men, then baldness as a trait would have been selected against. But clearly this is not the case. Schizophrenia, Obesity, heart disease, kidney failure and even homosexuality etc all have a genetic disposition by some degree. If there was a "selection" force, like the one you discribed then no harmful mutation would have persists. So what is your explanation for the contrary? That over time these traits would diminish?
As for your statement that " This is why the most severe genetic diseases are fatal at a very early age"
This is post hoc. You assume that evolution kills of youngs before they reach the age of sexual maturity so that their flawed genetic make up is not passed on. But if you think about it, child mortality is high because their constitution is weak to begin with. The babybirdie that is slow and stupid will be eaten by the faster, clever hawk or eagle. The babybirdie that has a defective sensory organ will be unable to find food in an enviornment of limited resources. So it is not only bad genes that are "selected" against but maladapted genes too. In this respect, your explanation for the selection against bad genes, works in reverse for the selection of better genes. So that if humans were immortal, only the strong would survive and florish. This is perhaps the Spartan/Nazi mentality..that the weak SHOULD perish for the sake of the strong. So in a way it sounds like you are advocating for Eugenic theories. Interesting, because this is exactly the type of logic that was used a hundred years ago in the Americas and the Europe for castrating and or labotomizing retarded children, sick and handicapped people.

How do biology and the theory of evolution account for senescence? Why are we born just to grow old and die?

Cacer as a disease is actually a modern disease. Several Hundred years ago cancer was a rarerly observed. Also, did you know that the more calories you eat, after maturity, the more likely it is that you will die younger. Apparently, the more you work your digestive system, the harder it has to "process" and "filter" the harmfull substances that you unintentially also digest. And over time, our foods have become more and more processed. Although Medicine, with it's preventive aspects, have reduced child mortality and prolonged our life span, our diet and our enviornment has proportionately offset our life span likewise.

There is a perfectly rational explanation as to why we age from a biological perspective. We age because of the accumulation of Free Radicals in our system. These have been found to be the greatest cause for Damaging our DNA structure over time. Indeed all signs of aging are as a result of Damage to our DNA...from toxins, UV rays of the sun, radiation from cell phones and tvs, bad diet, lack of exercise ..etc etc etc etc. This is why lately anti oxidants have been marketed as the new hype. The answer to why we age is as simple as the answer to why does an apple on the window cell rot.

Still, I can even give you an evolutionary explanation as to why death exists. Death and Sex may both act as beneficiary acts for the species as a whole but a cost to the individual. One of the early challenges that was laid against the theory of evolution as propounded by Darwin, was the act of Altruism. It was difficult for scientist to understand why acts such as mutuatlism, symbioses and even "martyrdom" were observed in the animal world. So later the explanation came that evolution does not favour the species per say, but the DNA. So if an animal risks it's life there was a cost benefit equation, such that the degree of relatedness of the animal to other would determine it's drive. Similarly, evolution does not select for one species over another, but all species...and just as sex exists for increasing the variability of the gene pool, so does death exist to confer an advantage to dispersal of genes. If we live immortally then competition would be reduced, but it is because we mortal that our ill acts such as Wars, Genocides and murder drives for short term gains. The cosmos is ever changing, seasons change, and the earth is being hearld at a speed of 30 Km/s across space and who knows what is out there. And if the genetic make up of immortal beings, and every creature was set, one small change and everything would go instinct.

I know some of you out there would get confused by my answer. Wasn't I against Evolution?
If I wanted...I could counter the above too :P

[Mayana]

Thank you Alchemist, I finally feel like I'm taking something from this discussion. (No offense, roadrunner.)

I know I might not have worded it too well, but what I meant to say was that some harmful traits, on the long run will be selected against while others will continue to exist. The example you gave with the weak birdie - is it weak because it is selected against or is it selected against because it is weak? If there were no predators, no harm and no danger in the environment, would the birdie still not die? For example, if there were no predators, no harm and enough resources for a child with Tay Sachs Syndrome - e.g. if it weren't attacked because of its weakness and fragility - it would still die before it reaches sexual maturity, am I right? So, from a biological perspective, is this not genetically determined by the fact that the genetic malfunctions will cause the individual to die no matter what? As far as I know, this is the evolutionary argument that bad phenotypes are taken out of the gene pool to prevent it from spreading (although the genotype might still exist in the siblings and parents - which is why the diseases don't go extinct).

One thing that confused me was when you said that competition would be reduced if a species was immortal - can you please elaborate on that? How does it accord with the struggle for limited resources? And are you saying that death is just another form of martyrdom to help the DNA be carried on efficiently?

From the evolutionary perspective, why did life evolve, why did RNA evolve? To be?


I'm sorry if it seems like I'm asking too many questions, they're sincere questions I swear!

[Alchemist]

Your wording seems to be the problem here Mayana.
As you know in science, especially biology it is all about the wording. That is why we have scientific journals that have a standard on how ideas and experiments are worded.

- is it weak because it is selected against or is it selected against because it is weak?

The answer is the same in both respect as the key word here is selection. Depending on what the selection pressure is, the organism is deemed either weak or strong. So in your ideal world, where there is ample resources, no predator, migration, sexual selection, random mutation etc etc...eventually the allele's fitness is expressed by the Hardy Weinberg Formula p^2 + 2pq + q^2
Hardy

But then again, such a world does not exist. As I explained earlier, we die because it is the nature of this universe to destroy and corrode and decay and rot and oxidize...which is why older people having children are more at risk of giving birth to defective babies than younger couples.

So, from a biological perspective, is this not genetically determined by the fact that the genetic malfunctions will cause the individual to die no matter what?

TaySechs is more like a genetic malfunction than a genetic "determination". It goes to show that any form of mutation is harmful. It is only because of the severity of the mutation that organism dies earlier..meaning if the mutation happens to a gene that is responsible for the differentiation of cardiac muscle, then the fetus fails to develop. In most cases of genetic blunder, at any stage of mieosis, conception etc, death is certain. In less sever cases such as anemia, organism lives on. Geneticists agree that there is a base level of mutation of 10^-4 at least. So "some harmful traits, on the long run will be selected against while others will continue to exist" on the contrary...harmful traits are increasing. Like I said, every generation mutation increases, recessive traits increase. At one point in our history, there were no people with green eyes or blonde hair...this is rather a recent trait. Fortunately most mutations are silent, but at least 100 to 200 genetic mutations for every generation.
'

One thing that confused me was when you said that competition would be reduced if a species was immortal - can you please elaborate on that? How does it accord with the struggle for limited resources?
Right!
If we were immortal, then it would be a different world. We wouldn't be in a rush to gain riches in a short amount of time, and so there would be less competition, less cheating, less haste and thus less waste, and more patience. Death, in a way encourages risky behaviour. Sounds counter intuitive ...but how many times have you heard a chain smoker or an alcoholic say "Oh heck ...we are all gonna die anyway!"
I associate this concept with the verse from the Qur'an - Khalaqal Mowta wal Hayta leeyablowakum ayukum ahsaanu 3amala - "Created Death and Life to show you which one of you does the better deeds."

And are you saying that death is just another form of martyrdom to help the DNA be carried on efficiently?

Not "efficiently" per say, but it gives DNA a greater rate of "Survivability" as competition between different species would assure a stable base of variety of DNA for more different types of situation. Like how you prune a tree, so that it grows a certain way, or another - perhaps "Flexibility" is the word.


From the evolutionary perspective, why did life evolve, why did RNA evolve? To be?

This question "why life evolves" cannot be answered by Science.
However RNA has characteristics that give it an advantage over DNA in that it is more Reactive than DNA and thus can bind to enzymes..

[Mayana]

Why then is it that harmful traits are increasing, if natural selection is said to be in favor of those traits that promote survival and reproduction? Intuitively, an increase in number of mutations seems to be in accordance with the notion of entropy, but it seems to be contradicting the idea of natural selection. If natural selection favors those phenotypes that promote survival and reproduction, how can it account for an increase in phenotypes that obstruct survival and successful reproduction?

[Alchemist]

It can't.
Natural Selection is not a proven fact. But only an assumed mechanism of evolution.
Some evolutionists...a great many actually, believe that evolution had stopped 50,000 years ago. At least for humans, this is believed by orthodox evolutionists even. So if you say, why...they will just say that maybe we, as a species are being selected against. Perhaps because we are "viral" to the planet and that our consciousness and highly developed brain has allowed us to escape the natural forces of evolution.
Natural Selection cannot be proven in a laboratory and has not even been SCIENTIFICALLY proven. One of the examples that are still published in biology text books is an old old observation of "peppered moths" resting on tree trunks...that some how industrialization of great london had favoured one colour of moths over another. This was debunked later by many other scientists who repeated the experiments. This is because there is a serious flaw to the scientific method, in that more often than not, conclusions are reached at post hoc. The scientists thinks that this is what he is looking for, so this is what he fudges his numbers to make look like..to prove himself right. And believe it or not, in most cases, it is all done subconsciously. This is one of the reasons that now we almost ALWAYS employ double blind experiments in psychology and biology experiments as a way to stop our selves from finding what we only want to find...to make it more objective and less subjective.

[Midnight_Sun]

Well that was a long read.

You don't read, you just react.

But I think the three of you need to organize yourselves a little more. And maybe some other readers should join into because this is too easy for me.

Everything is easy when you dodge questions and try to derail the conversation every time.

Midnight Sun, Here is a challenge for you

I'm way past challenges anymore with you. You can't even answer one simple question to show major scientists who do not believe in evolution. You found me sources from punctuated equilibria evolutionary biologists, and one source, which linked to a dead link. Not only that, you have already dodge my question to show me how a Homo erectus is in fact a Homo sapien.

Secondly, you seem to confuse culture and biology. Let's leave biology aside and delve into culture.

No, no, we are not going to do that. I grow tired of your attempts to derail the conversation.

Homo Erectus was a race of people. Here is an Article Published in New Scientific Magazine on March 14 1998 where it shows that Homo erectus were Ship builders, 700,000 years ago.
Sign in to read: Ancient mariners - Early humans were much smarter than we suspected - 14 March 1998 - New Scientist
I posted another article on this forum a month ago. And here there is more evidence shown that early humans, as far back as 100,000+ years ago where sea goers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/sc...cheo.html?_r=1

Your first article barely showed an abstract for the actual article, which you have to pay to see. If you have access to it, show me the entire document. You have not show any proof yet. From one of your own articles:

"Archaeologists can only speculate about who the toolmakers were. One hundred and thirty thousand years ago, modern humans shared the world with other hominids, like Neanderthals and Homo heidelbergensis. The Acheulean culture is thought to have started with Homo erectus.

Your own articles prove your accusations wrong. This article testifies to the difference between Hominid species. Please don't get into a racial superiority chest thump here talking about Mongoloids and negroids again.

Now since you have already provided information that says that modern humans only date to 50,000 years ago,

No, that's not what I said, again stop putting words in my mouth! No wonder a lot of people don't want to talk to you. You make up your own lies and then go on rants about them.

Since the evidence is there that Neanderthals, Cro Magnon, Homo Sapians and Homo Erectus were a people of culture, thinking and living, why would you want to class them as a different Species? Which brings me to my original question - Define the word Species!

Just because you feel you need to re-define phylogeny, doesn't mean everybody is going to jump on your crazy boat. I'm not going to teach you anything.

Alchemist, this is what you have proven to me:

1. You're a racist
2. You put words in people's mouths
3. You derail arguments and create circular arguments
4. You dismiss other peoples sources as "propaganda machines"


Finally, you're a fraud who gets proven wrong in his own debates with his OWN sources. That usually happens when you try to use science to disprove science. You are a master of irony, I'll give you that.

Consider our useless dialogue done.

[Midnight_Sun]

How do biology and the theory of evolution account for senescence? Why are we born just to grow old and die? [/COLOR]

That's actually a very good question but more interesting than death is the issue of perpetuity itself. Look at the Mayfly, which has the lifespan of just 30 minutes compared to our own lifespans. If they could perceive it, we'd all be ageless.

In a similar way, just like our Earth is over a billion years old, and our Sun has it's own lifespan, everything made of matter seems to change. Even our Universe has an estimated age, and from the Big Bang theory, there is also a Big Crunch theory, and even further theories of an "Endless Universe" as prescribed by Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok in that aptly named book.

That's a different subject in it's own, and could merit it's own topic.

[Alchemist]

You don't read, you just react.



Everything is easy when you dodge questions and try to derail the conversation every time.




I'm way past challenges anymore with you. You can't even answer one simple question to show major scientists who do not believe in evolution. You found me sources from punctuated equilibria evolutionary biologists, and one source, which linked to a dead link. Not only that, you have already dodge my question to show me how a Homo erectus is in fact a Homo sapien.



No, no, we are not going to do that. I grow tired of your attempts to derail the conversation.



Your first article barely showed an abstract for the actual article, which you have to pay to see. If you have access to it, show me the entire document. You have not show any proof yet. From one of your own articles:

"Archaeologists can only speculate about who the toolmakers were. One hundred and thirty thousand years ago, modern humans shared the world with other hominids, like Neanderthals and Homo heidelbergensis. The Acheulean culture is thought to have started with Homo erectus.

Your own articles prove your accusations wrong. This article testifies to the difference between Hominid species. Please don't get into a racial superiority chest thump here talking about Mongoloids and negroids again.



No, that's not what I said, again stop putting words in my mouth! No wonder a lot of people don't want to talk to you. You make up your own lies and then go on rants about them.



Just because you feel you need to re-define phylogeny, doesn't mean everybody is going to jump on your crazy boat. I'm not going to teach you anything.

Alchemist, this is what you have proven to me:

1. You're a racist
2. You put words in people's mouths
3. You derail arguments and create circular arguments
4. You dismiss other peoples sources as "propaganda machines"


Finally, you're a fraud who gets proven wrong in his own debates with his OWN sources. That usually happens when you try to use science to disprove science. You are a master of irony, I'll give you that.

Consider our useless dialogue done.

Interesting.

Rather than accept my challenges all you did was grasp for straws and try to write my psychological profile.
You are putting up a show for everyone else but I was genuinely interested in your opinions on the issue. If you were sincere you would have answered my questions, as I have answered yours. I did quote you major scientists, and I could quote you 20 more.


Fine, if I am a racist then what are you?

A specieist?
Which is worse?
If you are willing to call a race of people a class of "lower beings" (primates) then it is you who is taking the definition of racism to it's literal and extreme meaning.

Are you even muslim? I highly doubt it.
Because your argument is totally contrary to our Religion.
The question regarding the origin of life cannot be answered by science.
Rather you show a religious conviction to a dogmatic and unscientific mythology that describes the origins of man from a dialectical materialist perspective. The way you ask for quotes from "professors" goes to show that you dogmatically follow the priestly institutions of university. Interestingly enough, universities were originally places governed by Churches in Europe. In those times access to books were controlled such that only those who had dedicated long enough time to the institutions were "able" to read. Thus the job of the professor was to "profess" what was written in the books verbatim. Rather than discuss with me the structure and logic of evolution, you are more concerned for the Name and Prestige of the scientist. This goes to show that really it is you who is narrow minded. Your sources so far have been cartoon pictures from grade 9 biology books. Look at how you answer Mayana's question by "derailing" from the original question to subjects that have nothing to do with "evolution".
If anything, you have given us a glimpse of the inner workings of the minds of a drone. All the labels that you gave in truth apply to you. And this is where the real irony is.

If our dialogue has been useless, it is only because you have made it so. And if it were ended, then you shouldn't have replied to begin with since in this post of yours you have not made not even one constructive criticism or any logical rebuttal.

It is called Projection.

Please stop it.

[Michin Khel]

If some one strongly believe in Darwin theory of evolution then he automatically becomes non-Muslim?