Evolution, why us?

[طالب]

Evolution is based on dialectical materialism.

Hahaha, oh man where do they come up with this stuff?

[ScimitarXEdge]

prove it

we're not 70 feet tall.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Alchemist jaan, I don't understand why we need to have such a literal belief in the creation story of the Qur'an; what aspect of Islam even requires that or stresses that? You can't tell me that God actually has "hands" as humans do and played around with balls of clay to make a person. This is essentially almost like Hinduish way of understanding religion.

Islam is a logical religion; scientific understandings are wholly in line with Islam. there's no reason to use Harun Yahya arguments here.

[Midnight_Sun]

Scimitar,

Alchemist is one of those guys who will disagree for the sake of disagreeing. If you said that gravity is real, he would find the irregularity of gravity when applying to quantum mechanics and say therefore gravity is false.

If you say the Big Bang theory is relevant, he would find the alternate theory (e.g. Endless Universe theory), then say that you reject God.

Then he'll go into a metaphysical tangent about God and dialectical materialism and then chest thump at how 'smart' he is. Probably followed by accusations that you hate Islam and are probably an Ismaeli double-agent, lol.

[Midnight_Sun]

Islam is a logical religion; scientific understandings are wholly in line with Islam.

This.

[Alchemist]

Please, point out exactly where I've rewritten your objections.

I did in my previous post. I don't have time to spoon feed you.

1. Listen, this is pretty much agreed on by everyone. Wikipidia states the first living organisms to be more than 4 billion years old. I can post a few news articles that talk about the 3.5 billion year old fossils. It wouldn't take me more than a few minutes on google, you can even do it yourself.

The Age of earth is 4.3 billion years old. So you are saying 300 million years after the earth was formed, life emerged? Very embarrassing.

The conditions on earth were not even fit for life. Why they say cyanobacteria? Because it doesn't need oxygen, it get's its energy from the sun.

2. Please, post the source. I want to read it before I comment on it.

My response to the second last post of mid night sun.

3. Do you disagree that vertebrates did not exist 1, 2 or 3 billion years ago? Do you agree that invertebrates existed on earth before vertebrates?

Vertebrates and Invertebrates came into existence during the SAME epoch - Cambrian Explosion!

I'm happy you want to learn about the method. Luckily I don't have to suppose anything and the method is far from a "purely subjective" method.

Dating is based he assumption that "all else is equal".

1. The cyanobacteria itself does not "exist from 3.5 billion years ago". Rather, we have stromatolites of fossilized cyanobacteria.

We also have INDIRECT evidence that eukaryotypes, archaea also existed 3.5 billion years ago.
[Luca: the last universal common ancestor]. [Med Sci (Paris). 2005] - PubMed result
Questioning the evidence for Earth's oldest fossil... [Nature. 2002] - PubMed result

Nature. 2002 Mar 7;416(6876):76-81.
Questioning the evidence for Earth's oldest fossils.

Structures resembling remarkably preserved bacterial and cyanobacterial microfossils from about 3,465-million-year-old Apex cherts of the Warrawoona Group in Western Australia currently provide the oldest morphological evidence for life on Earth and have been taken to support an early beginning for oxygen-producing photosynthesis. Eleven species of filamentous prokaryote, distinguished by shape and geometry, have been put forward as meeting the criteria required of authentic Archaean microfossils, and contrast with other microfossils dismissed as either unreliable or unreproducible. These structures are nearly a billion years older than putative cyanobacterial biomarkers, genomic arguments for cyanobacteria, an oxygenic atmosphere and any comparably diverse suite of microfossils. Here we report new research on the type and re-collected material, involving mapping, optical and electron microscopy, digital image analysis, micro-Raman spectroscopy and other geochemical techniques. We reinterpret the purported microfossil-like structure as secondary artefacts formed from amorphous graphite within multiple generations of metalliferous hydrothermal vein chert and volcanic glass. Although there is no support for primary biological morphology, a Fischer--Tropsch-type synthesis of carbon compounds and carbon isotopic fractionation is inferred for one of the oldest known hydrothermal systems on Earth.

secondary artefacts - hope you know what that means!

The universal ancestor

A discrete picture of the ancestor began to emerge only when many more sequences representing all three phylogenetic domains became available. These sequences could be seen as putting phenotypic flesh on an ancestral phylogenetic skeleton. Yet that task has turned out to be anything but straightforward. Indeed, it would seem to require disarticulating the skeleton. No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced.
Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves. Yet there is no consistent alternative to the rRNA phylogeny, and that phylogeny is supported by a number of fundamental genes. The aminoacyl–tRNA synthetases (aaRSs) epitomize this confused situation (17, 18). For example, it is common to see archaeal versions of some of the aaRSs scattered throughout the Bacteria (17) (C.W., unpublished data). The aaRSs can in principle be used to root the universal tree (because some of them obviously reflect common ancestral gene duplications). Yet different (related) aaRSs root that tree differently: the ileRS tree roots (using the valRSs) canonically; i.e., the Archaea and eukaryotes are sister groups (19). The valRS tree, however, roots on the archaeal branch, which makes sister groups of the Bacteria and eukaryotes (C.W., unpublished data). Exceptions to the topology of the rRNA tree such as these are sufficiently frequent and statistically solid that they can be neither overlooked nor trivially dismissed on methodological grounds. Collectively, these conflicting gene histories are so convoluted that lateral gene transfer is their only reasonable explanation (18).

^Subjective

A concept of the universal ancestor turns on more than phylogenetic trees, however. The Archaea and Bacteria share a large number of metabolic genes that are not found in eukaryotes (18, 20). If these two “prokaryotic” groups span the primary phylogenetic divide and their genes are vertically (genealogically) inherited, then the universal ancestor must have had all of these genes, these many functions: This distribution of genes would make the ancestor a prototroph with a complete tricarboxylic acid cycle, polysaccharide metabolism, both sulfur oxidation and reduction, and nitrogen fixation; it was motile by means of flagella; it had a regulated cell cycle, and more. This is not the simple ancestor, limited in metabolic capabilities, that biologists originally intuited. That ancestor can explain neither this broad distribution of diverse metabolic functions nor the early origin of autotrophy implied by this distribution. The ancestor that this broad spread of metabolic genes demands is totipotent (21), a genetically rich and complex entity, as rich and complex as any modern cell—seemingly more so...

The further back in evolutionary time we look, the more the notion of an “organismal lineage”—indeed, the very definition of “organism” itself—comes into question. It is time to release this notion of organismal lineages altogether and see where that leaves us. Let molecular phylogenetic trees represent exactly what they in the first instance do represent, histories of individual genes or gene groupings. When do individual gene histories define an organismal history, an organismal lineage? Did organismal lineages even exist at the time of the universal ancestor? If not, then what exactly was this ancestor, and what was the nature of the evolutionary process that formed it?

^ Scientist saying that the earliest simple cell, could not have been "Simple". Basically EXPOSING your blind belief that simple organisms predated complex organisms and thus simple evolved to complex.

2. A stromatolite is (very simplified) a rock formed in shallow water by the growth of blue-green algae (i.e. cyanobacteria).

See above also...

"Using photographs taken in the field, and polished slabs
of rock in the laboratory, [the researchers] traced and digitised
the layers of stromatolites to allow the calculation of
mathematical power spectra. They show that, over three orders
of magnitude in size, the stromatolite laminae as seen in the
field and on the slabs obey the same power law. From this they
obtain the fractal dimension of the stromatolites, and use it to
deduce the processes of stromatolite growth.
"The upshot, they propose, is that the morphogenesis of all
stromatolites can be accounted for by four abiotic processes:
fallout of suspended sediment, downslope movement of that
sediment (or the mathematical equivalent surface-tension effects
in chemical precipitation), surface-normal precipitation, and
random effects. They conclude that, theoretically, abiotic
processes can generate stromatolites, and in the absence of
microfossils within them it may be impossible to prove their
biological origins."

An abiotic model for stromatolite morphogenesis

3. The biogeneicity of the stromatolites are not determined "purely subjectively" by "supposed imprints", rather a number of criteria have been put forward for recognising genuinely biologica structures from non-biological structures that could rise from purely physical or chemical processes alone. You can read more about it in this article: http://www.scribd.com/doc/32485930/T...Sandy-Deposits

http://www.eps.mcgill.ca/~hofmann/Hofm991256.pdf
^ this is an actual paper that studies stromatolites.
Read it carefully. The Author determines if it is or it isn't based on his own subjective view, of whether it could or could not be formed purely from a chemical process, or a biotic process. There is no DIRECT evidence of it being a "fossil" of a microbe!
Basically, your claim of 3.5 billion years old fossil rests on shady ground which has been substantially debated and not 100% confirmed!
Scientists are looking at patterns in the rock and trying to guess if there used to be microbes there or not. It's like looking at a blob of ink and trying to see if there is a picture of a sexy lady in the blob. Or like some conspiracy nut who thinks he can read another message in Coca Cola bottle's label that says no god no mohammad. That my friend, is what I mean by subjective process.
And you proved me right by just admitting that IT COULD BE purely chemical. In the court of law, you must prove guilt BEYOUND A SHADOW OF DOUBT! And when it comes to PRECAMBRIAN era, there is much doubt but little proof. There are only 30 stromatolites that date that far back and I have quoted genuine articles that cast enough doubt on their biogenic origins. Thus, the evidence that life existed 3.5 billion years, is no more or less than the evidence that life also existed on mars or one of jupiter's moons. Which in turn proves nothing about evolution or it being a "fact".

4. Radiometric dating is used to date the stromatolites. That's how they know "how old it is".

I already told you the flaws of radiometric dating because it holds the assumption that "all else being equal" that the...

1) rate of decay has been constant throughout time.
2). isotope abundances in the specimen dated have not been altered during its history by addition or removal of either parent or daughter isotopes
3) when the rock first formed it contained a known amount of daughter material

None of this is a given fact!

Here is a real scientific journal that explains how dating is carried out:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...2&searchtype=a

Still the assumptions are flawed.

I have just found out that the 3.5 billion figure is in dispute. It cannot be ruled out that the fossils are not biological in nature. However, I was just using the 3.5 billion year figure as an example. I did a quick search for the earliest fossils and found the article about the 3.5 billion old stromatolites. And that's what you don't seem to understand. Even if those fossils turn out not be biological in nature, we still have other fossils billions of years old.

so now you admit you are wrong. Thank you for manning up to that.

As for the "other fossils billions of years old". They prove nothing. As I stated earlier and earlier, the record shows an EXPLOSION of life during the CAMBRIAN age. Prior to that there was no "simple" life to "complex life". Thus you have put the last nail in the coffin of evolution and proved once and for all that evolution is NOT FACT but still a theory...a very weak one.

The fact remains that invertebrates existed on earth billions of years before vertebrates did. Now do you dispute that?

Yes. I do dispute that.

You don't seem to know the meaning of what two classifications are. Both vertebrates and invertabrates, are forms of COMPLEX LIFE!!!

Exactly, it quotes a source, and you can check the source for yourself if in doubt. I've yet to see you complain about any source though so I assume you accept them. Only thing you've done thus far is complain about Wikipedia, why don't you be more specific for once and point out exactly which unreliable sources Wikipedia is using?

Oh wait, I forgot, you never looked at the sources, you just complained about Wikipedia because you had nothing better to offer.

b.s

No, it's obvious you haven't understood a word of what I was saying. I told you I used it as an example. I even gave you another example using a bike: Lets say you put your bike in the garage and leave home. When you come back suddenly your bike is standing in front of your house. Are you going to start arguing that the bike was not moved from the garage because you don't know how it happened? Of course not, you might not know how it was moved, but you still know that it was moved.

still back peddling.

I never said the process is bogus. I said it is utterly irrelevant to the case for the FoE. Can't you understand that?

no such thing as foe. you just admitted that above.

So what if "less complex organisms" exist to this day? The point is that today we also have complex organisms. These complex organisms did not exist billions of years ago, but simple organisms did. Thus, somehow, in the course of those billions of years, complex organisms must have arrived. They weren't there to start with.

so the supposition that simple leads to complex is false. as all complex life came about together. I quoted you enough sources above. You are quoting websites that are behind 30 years.

No, it wasn't. The FoE explains how animal and plant species develop out of other species not at all like them. Nothing more nothing less.

"EXPLAINS HOW"?
How?
you said the process doesn't matter...and now you say it says how... how? Where is the proof for speciation?

Again, you don't know what a theory and a fact is in the scientific sense. I've tried explaining it to you but you simply don't want to read it. And what you read you don't understand. If you did indeed read and understand you wouldn't be making these wrong statements. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. This is confusing to you because you don't think of the terms in the scientific sense. You think of them according to some popular definition

.
yeah...
but admitting that stromatolites could just be natural rock formations, you pretty much admitted that simple life does not predate complex life and thus admit that there is no "linkages" between the different species..or your belief that one species evolved into another ..that is prokaryotes to eukaryotes....cells with no nucleas, to ones with nucleas.

You're never specific. You just make broad statements and hope that something sticks. Which fallacies are you talking about? Where exactly is my reasoning lacking? I didn't ignore any of the fallacies you copy pasted, in fact I responded to your whole post bit by bit. If you don't point out where exactly I'm wrong, then I can't respond.

I like how you guys keep posting this
and bounce around claiming victory for your selves.
No need to get this cocky. I bet you haven't even read one biology text book in your life! Since you only have a 5 word biology vocabulary beyound which you have no comprehension. Thank you google.

Hahaha, oh man where do they come up with this stuff?

Ask Lenin:

"All of Marx’s theory is the most consistent, complete, well thought out and essential application to contemporary capitalism of the theory of evolution. The great value of Marx’s statements here, too, is to consistently apply materialistic dialectic and the theory of evolution, and to regard communism as something developing out of capitalism."

(Viladimir I. Lenin, Devlet ve Ihtilal, Marksist Devlet Ögretisi ve Proleteryanin Devrimdeki Görevleri (State and Revolution, Marxist Teaching of State and Duties of the Proletariat in Revolution)Vol. 1)

Or let's ask Lord Wikipedia:

Lenin's contributions

Dialectical materialism was first elaborated by Lenin in Materialism and Empiriocriticism in 1908 around three axes: the "materialist inversion" of Hegelian dialectics, the historicity of ethical principles ordered to class struggle and the convergence of "laws of evolution" in physics (Helmholtz), biology (Darwin) and in political economics (Marx). Lenin hence took position between a historicist Marxism (Labriola) and a determinist Marxism, close to "social Darwinism" (Kautsky). New discoveries in physics, including x-rays, electrons, and the beginnings of quantum mechanics challenged previous conceptions of matter and materialism. Matter seemed to be disappearing. Lenin disagreed:

'Matter disappears' means that the limit within which we have hitherto known matter disappears and that our knowledge is penetrating deeper; properties of matter are disappearing that formerly seemed absolute, immutable and primary, and which are now revealed to be relative and characteristic only of certain states of matter. For the sole 'property' of matter with whose recognition philosophical materialism is bound up is the property of being an objective reality, of existing outside of the mind.

Lenin was following on from the work of Friedrich Engels, who had noted that "with each epoch-making discovery even in the sphere of natural science, materialism has to change its form."[14] One of Lenin's challenges was distancing materialism as a viable philosophical outlook from what he referred to as the "vulgar materialism" expressed in statements like "the brain secretes thought in the same way as the liver secretes bile" (attributed to 18th century physician Pierre Jean Georges Cabanis, 1757-1808); "metaphysical materialism" (matter is composed of immutable, unchanging particles); and 19th-century "mechanical materialism" (matter was like little molecular billiard balls interacting according to simple laws of mechanics). Lenin's (and Engels') solution to this challenge was "dialectical materialism", where matter was understood in the broader sense of "objective reality" and consistent with new developments in science.


How about a friend named Leon Trotsky.


Leon Trotsky: The ABC of Materialist Dialectics (1939)


You guys think I am just farting nonsense?

This is the truth. But you laugh and giggle like little school girls. So who is the real fool here?


So this was your FIRST attempt at using scientific sources to back your delusions up. And in the process you came to the realization that 3.5 billion yrs is in dispute. That there are NO DIRECT evidence of fossils existing that far back. Now I have posted you enough sources admitting that simple life could not predate complex life. Rather all complex life emerged together. You can read up on the sources for why the scientists say this now. Eukaryotes, Archaea and Bacteria were all existing simultaneously. Invertebrates and vertebrates, (rather all classes of living things) emerged together during the cambrian explosion. Thus your belief that simple life predates complex and therefore simple life evolved into complex life is FALLACIOUS. Based on conjectures! Not Facts. And hence, FOE is your own belief system, which is based on dialectical materialism - that material changes (thus the link between marx and darwin). Lastly, the only crack in your theory left is the dating methodology which I haven't expounded on yet. However, if we do go into that I will show you in detail how radiometric dating is flawed as well. Thus in conclusion, your belief that one life form "evolved" into another life form billions of years ago, holds as much water as the belief that earth is only 6 000 years old and is flat.


Thank you for your participation.

[Alchemist]

Alchemist jaan, I don't understand why we need to have such a literal belief in the creation story of the Qur'an; what aspect of Islam even requires that or stresses that? You can't tell me that God actually has "hands" as humans do and played around with balls of clay to make a person. This is essentially almost like Hinduish way of understanding religion.

Islam is a logical religion; scientific understandings are wholly in line with Islam. there's no reason to use Harun Yahya arguments here.

We'll talk in private


no need to confuse the kids.

[طالب]

I did in my previous post. I don't have time to spoon feed you.

No, you wrote:

you are selectively reading and filtering my argument off it's proofs and rewriting it to fit your own grade 3 understanding of the world.

That's not specific at all. Just a broad, useless labeling of my post. If we're going to have a proper debate, you'll have to point out exactly where and how my reasoning is flawed. Not just throw around broad accusations.

The Age of earth is 4.3 billion years old. So you are saying 300 million years after the earth was formed, life emerged? Very embarrassing.

1. The age of the Earth is not 4.3 billion years old, it's 4.5 billion years old. Read the first line on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

2. 4.3 billion years minus 3.5 billion years old is not 300 million years, it's 700 million years. If we use the figure of 4.5 billion years, the fossils are 1 billion years old. Windows has a built-in calculator if you don't know how to subtract. Protip: use it.

The conditions on earth were not even fit for life. Why they say cyanobacteria? Because it doesn't need oxygen, it get's its energy from the sun.

1. 3.5 billion years ago nitrogen was a major part of the atmosphere.

2. Cyanobacteria is a microorganism that fix nitrogen.

3. Thus, the conditions on Earth were fit for life.

My response to the second last post of mid night sun.

I assume you talk about the post in which two articles are posted:

1. http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=MU04039.pdf

2. A methodological bias toward overestimation of molecular evolutionary time scales

Now the first article concerns Procellariiformes which are completely unrelated to what we're discussing, so you're probably talking about the second article.

The second article discusses how molecular evolutionary time scales can be biased. But the stromatolites were dated using radiometric dating. Thus the article doesn't apply to them. Is radiometric dating 100% correct? Of course not, there is an error margin, but the margin is not one of billions of years. Rather we're talking about a few million years for every 2½ billion years.

In fact, the article references another article (6. Wray G A. Genome Biol. 2002;3:1–7.) in which the very first line of the article is:

The history of life stretches back more than 3.6 billion years, to a time soon after liquid water had begun to accumulate from volcanic gases onto the newly solid surface of the Earth.

Vertebrates and Invertebrates came into existence during the SAME epoch - Cambrian Explosion!

This is probably the most fantastical statement I've heard in this whole thread, if not from anyone I've ever debated evolution with. It's like somebody stating that the Earth is flat. But in a way I'm happy, because finally you take issue with one of the three propositions that underlie the case for the FoE:

3. Simple organisms were on Earth long before complex organisms (e.g. invertebrates before vertebrates).

Fortunately, you are wrong. Invertebrates and vertebrates did not come into existence during the same epoch. The Cambrian explosion occurred around 530 million years ago, but the earliest invertebrates date back billions of years. Source:

Laminated domical structures known as ‘stromatolites’ (Figure 3A) have been described from carbonate rocks as old as 3450Ma in the Pilbara Supergroup of Western Australia (Figure 3C) and in the coeval Swaziland Supergroup of South Africa.
...
It is only after about 3000Ma that fractally complex stromatolites are
found in carbonate platform settings
...
A classic example of a silicified Precambrian microbiota is the 1900Ma old Gunflint Chert, which preserves about 12 taxa of prokaryotes, including
forms that superficially resemble coccoid and filamentous cyanobacteria (Figure 3D and insert) but may be more closely allied to extant iron bacteria.
The putative cyanobacteria Eoentophysalis (Figure 3B) and Archaeoellipsoides are thought to be present in the approximately 2100Ma old cherts of West Africa and the 2000Ma old Belcher Group cherts of Canada, respectively.

ScienceDirect - Encyclopedia of Geology : PRECAMBRIAN | Prokaryote Fossils

And:

Despite the fact that there are doubters for almost all of the evidence for life in the Archean, evidence for early life has expanded tremendously in the past 20 years, from body fossils to isotopic and geochemical studies. These data are supported in most cases by detailed stratigraphic and sedimentologic evidence of the environments of early life, and by knowledge of the depositional and metamorphic history of the rocks that contain ancient carbonaceous matter. Nisbet (2000) provided an excellent summary of the variety of environments for Archean life, including deep-sea hydrothermal vents, open ocean, lacustrine environments, hydrothermal sites around active volcanoes, and anywhere that microbial mats occur today, for example, in coastal sediments (FIG. 2.18).

ScienceDirect - Paleobotany (Second Edition) : Precambrian Life

And this is just Archean life. If we take Proterozoic life (again quoting from the same source):

There is abundant evidence of diverse life forms in the Proterozoic. In their review of Paleoproterozoic microfossils, Hofmann and Schopf (1983) listed 122 taxa (including 23 dubiofossils and pseudofossils) in 40 different biotas (2.5–1.6 Ga); this number does not include microorganisms that were not named. They classify these genera into five morphological categories: (1) coccoid unicells; (2) septate, unbranched, filaments; (3) tubular, unbranched forms; (4) branched filaments; and (5) bizarre or unusual forms, that is, those with unusual morphologies and uncertain affinities. Coccoid forms dominate most Paleoproterozoic assemblages,both in terms of diversity and abundance. In contrast to later Proterozoic and early Paleozoic forms, they generally exhibit a simple and unornamented morphology and are relatively small (25 m; most are 2–7 m). Included in this classification would be coccoid forms that occur in colonies which are usually surrounded by a sheath-like structure.

And yet another source on Proterozoic life:

The Labradorian unit (stage) occupies the upper part of the Lower
Proterozoic (Paleoproterozoic: Orosirian–Statherian), 2.0–1.65 Ga. The typical microbiota comes from the Gunflint Formation of the North America (Orosirian), approximately 1.9 Ga. (The Gunflint Formation stratigraphic counterpart occurs in the Labradorian trough.)
Fig. 2.: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...0bbd3100ff5cfc

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...chtype=a#secx3

"Precambrian life" is free to read and covers just about all the fossils and disputes regarding them. The fact remains that even though there are some doubters for almost all of the fossils of life in the Archean, the fossils of Proterozoic life are so numerous that it completely blows out of the water any notion that invertebrate life did not exist on earth before the Cambrian.

Now the earliest vertebrates date back 525 million years ago. The earliest known vertebrate is thought to be the Myllokunmingia. Source:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../402042a0.html

To sum up:

4.5 billion years - Earth was formed.

3.5 billion years - earliest invertebrates

0.525 billion years - earliest vertebrates

No vertebrate fossil has been found before 525 million years. Not 500, not 250, not 100, not 5, not 1, 0/zero/nil/nothing/no/not a single vertebrate fossil has been found dating before 525 million years.

...but many thousands of invertebrates have been found dating 3 billion, 2 billion, 1 billion years ago...

Given the evidence, how can you make the utterly fantastical statement that invertebrates did not appear before the Cambrian explosion?

Dating is based he assumption that "all else is equal".

See below

We also have INDIRECT evidence that eukaryotypes, archaea also existed 3.5 billion years ago.
[Luca: the last universal common ancestor]. [Med Sci (Paris). 2005] - PubMed result
Questioning the evidence for Earth's oldest fossil... [Nature. 2002] - PubMed result
secondary artefacts - hope you know what that means!

The 3.5 billion year old fossils are in dispute, so what? What about the 122 Proterozoic taxa? They're still dated 1-2 billion years old which is a billion years before the Cambrian.

I'm not claiming the 3.5 billion year old fossils are not in dispute, I'm saying that even if they were found to be abiogenic, we would still have thousands of invertebrate fossils dated 1-2.5 billion years old which are not doubted.

I was using the 3.5 billion year old fossils as an example. Going back to 3.0 billion year old fossils is not a problem. Or 2.5, or 2.0, or 1.5, or 1.0 billion years.

The only way you can bring my third premise into doubt is if you cast doubt on all the fossils from 3.5 billion years ago up til the Cambrian where vertebrates are first found.

I'm fine with that btw, let's get started. I can list precambrian fossils for months if that's what you want.

The universal ancestor
^Subjective

This has nothing to do with the dating of fossils and the veracity of them.

^ Scientist saying that the earliest simple cell, could not have been "Simple". Basically EXPOSING your blind belief that simple organisms predated complex organisms and thus simple evolved to complex.

Do you believe these Proterozoic prokaryotes, i.e. single celled organisms:





Are more complex than these, i.e. trillion celled organisms:






You're having a laugh, right?

Anyway, even if you don't believe in the notion that some organisms are more complex than others, the fact still remains that organisms are different from each other, and that vertebrates didn't exist before 535 million years ago while invertebrates existed billions of years ago.

See above also...
"Using photographs taken in the field, and polished slabs
of rock in the laboratory, [the researchers] traced and digitised
the layers of stromatolites to allow the calculation of
mathematical power spectra. They show that, over three orders
of magnitude in size, the stromatolite laminae as seen in the
field and on the slabs obey the same power law. From this they
obtain the fractal dimension of the stromatolites, and use it to
deduce the processes of stromatolite growth.
"The upshot, they propose, is that the morphogenesis of all
stromatolites can be accounted for by four abiotic processes:
fallout of suspended sediment, downslope movement of that
sediment (or the mathematical equivalent surface-tension effects
in chemical precipitation), surface-normal precipitation, and
random effects. They conclude that, theoretically, abiotic
processes can generate stromatolites, and in the absence of
microfossils within them it may be impossible to prove their
biological origins."
An abiotic model for stromatolite morphogenesis

Okay, I know you copy pasted this from Abiotic origin of stromatolites

Nevertheless, the article from 1996 did actually appear in Nature, and if you'd actually read it, you'd have seen what was stated in the final paragraph:

Our result demonstrates that the morphology of at least some, and perhaps many [notice, he doesn't say all], types of stromatolites may be accounted for exclusively by abiotic mechanisms, particularly where growth by precipitation is thought to be important. However, insomuch as microorganisms exist in virtually all shallow marine environments today, it would be misleading to assume that they did not inhabit the surfaces of most, if not all, Precambrian stromatolites.

An abiotic model for stromatolite morphogenesis

He goes on to say:

it seems prudent to remain cautious in the assumption of biogenicity without direct evidence supplied by the presence of fossilized microbes that can be shown to have influenced morphogenesis

An abiotic model for stromatolite morphogenesis

Oh okay. Good thing we have fossilized microbes dating back to around 1 billion years ago (that's 500 million years before the Cambrian explosion, fyi). http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/precamb...ersprings.html

Finally, just because one researcher suggests people should be cautious when judging the biogenicity of stomatolites, does that mean that all the thousands of stomatolites found dating from 1 billion years to 3.5 billion years are all abiogenic in nature?

I mean it's ridiculous. Hundreds upon hundreds of scientific articles have been written about Precambrian stomatolites, why would they write so much about them if they were all abiogenic?

http://www.eps.mcgill.ca/~hofmann/Hofm991256.pdf
^ this is an actual paper that studies stromatolites.
Read it carefully. The Author determines if it is or it isn't based on his own subjective view, of whether it could or could not be formed purely from a chemical process, or a biotic process. There is no DIRECT evidence of it being a "fossil" of a microbe!

Okay, so this paper from 1999 studies the 3.45Ga fossils from Pilbara. Of course there is a degree of subjectivity, as in all affairs that human beings attend to, but to claim that it's completely subjective is false. He argues on the basis of morphological evidence, as stated in the conclusion:

The Archean coniform stromatolites from the Warrawoona Group reported here are unlikely to have formed by deformational processes. On the basis of morphological evidence, such as illustrated here, we conclude that accretion played the dominant role in shaping the structures. Using a purely chemical process, it is difficult to account for the combination of steeply conical form modified by second-order corrugate lamination, coexistence of cones with branching pseudocolumns, and juxtaposition of uniform laminae in the conically laminated parts with more uneven wispy, lenticular horizontal laminae in intercone areas.
Their morphologic similarity to younger stromatolites like Jacutophyton and Thyssagetes, viewed as the result of input from biologic activity, indicates that they may have a similar origin, and may thus be of paleontological interest. We therefore regard the stromatolites at the Trendall locale as constituting additional evidence, albeit nonconclusive, for microbial activity in hypersaline settings, supporting the opinion of Lowe (1983) that microbes were involved in the formation of conically laminated Warrawoona stromatolites. Our data provide encouragement in our search for even better preserved and more revealing locales for study.

http://www.eps.mcgill.ca/~hofmann/Hofm991256.pdf

And you know what the funny thing is? He even debunks the "An abiotic model for stromatolite morphogenesis" paper you linked to before. I'm happy you posted the article, it gives thorough evidence for the 3.5 billion year old fossils.
　
Also, you know stromatolites are not just fossils, right? They exist even today. Some stromatolite fossils may be artifacts, but it would be fantastical to imagine that they are all artifacts when we know that they these structures do, in fact, exist.

Basically, your claim of 3.5 billion years old fossil rests on shady ground which has been substantially debated and not 100% confirmed!

This is science, nothing is 100% confirmed. I agree, the 3.5 billion fossils are debated. This doesn't mean they're not true though.
And what about all the other billion year old fossils? They're not all dated at 3.5 billion years you know. Some are dated at 2 billion years. How do you, for example, explain the 122 taxa listed by Hofmann and Schopf dated between 2.5-1.6 billion years?

Scientists are looking at patterns in the rock and trying to guess if there used to be microbes there or not. It's like looking at a blob of ink and trying to see if there is a picture of a sexy lady in the blob. Or like some conspiracy nut who thinks he can read another message in Coca Cola bottle's label that says no god no mohammad. That my friend, is what I mean by subjective process.

You are completely ignorant as to how researchers determine the biogenicity of stromatolites. You think that because they look at structures in the stromatolites, it's all guesswork. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Just because people look at structures and don't use a mathematical formula to reach a conclusion, doesn't mean it's all guesswork. Pathologist look at structures in skin/tissue all the time, would you ever dream of questioning their conclusions if you were lying ill on a hospital bed? Of course not.

So how come you're all of a sudden questioning experts looking at stromatolite structures? Oh wait I forgot, all the thousands of researches are just guessing, making stuff up out of thin air because, hey, they've all been brainwashed by the big evolution conspiracy, right?

Try and read the following passage, from the paper you posted:

5. Slopes on the cones are characteristically higher than 40°, attaining as much as 75° (Fig. 2E), and thus are far in excess of the angle of repose of loose granular material; this connotes rhythmic accumulation of mineral matter on or in a substrate of steep conical shape. Such accumulation thus cannot be due to simple mechanical sedimentation, but must reflect chemical and/or biological action or binding. We are not aware of any literature on abiogenic precipitative structures with laterally linked conical forms of the type encountered in the Warrawoona Group. The conical forms interpreted as abiogenic in the Paleoproterozoic Cowles Lake Formation (Grotzinger and Rothman, 1996) do not show the combination of steep slopes and flat intercolumn areas, nor the second-order convex-up curvatures. The accumulation in steep conical shapes requires the presence of a substantially cohesive substrate capable of maintaining its morphologic integrity over time to produce decimeter-sized laminated structures over a wide area. Microbial mats, or at least slimy biofilms of organic material, together with cementation, offer the most plausible explanation.
Such conically laminated biogenic structures are well known from Phanerozoic and Cryptozoic occurrences, including modern ones, like the conophytonid and thyssagetid stromatolites in Yellowstone
National Park (Walter et al., 1976). Conical stromatolites are characteristic features throughout Cryptozoic time, being particularly abundant in Neoarchean, Paleoproterozoic, and Mesoproterozoic time, and their biogenicity, though rarely demonstrable, is widely accepted by specialists (Walter, 1996). Conical stromatolites containing morphologically preserved microfossils are rare (e.g., see Schopf et al., 1984, p. 344), and even if microfossils are preserved therein, it does not necessarily follow that such biophoric structures must be biogenic, because the microfossils could be adventitious (Hofmann, 1973, p. 350). Until purely chemical, conically laminated structures become known, it is preferable to use positive evidence over negative evidence; thus, we favor a biogenic component in the interpretation of the Warrawoona conical structures, based on the similarity with younger stromatolites.

http://www.eps.mcgill.ca/~hofmann/Hofm991256.pdf

I mean is this "guesswork" to you? Them explaining rationally why their observations are not in accordance with purely chemical, conically laminated structures? How the "slopes on the cones...are far in excess of the angle of repose of loose granular material"?

Again, I certainly hope you don't acquire some heart problem and end up with a physician because he'll be *gasp* looking at your EKG and *gasp again* judging it according to observation. The only thing you calculate when reading an EKG is the freakin' heart rate, all the rest is looking at how broad and tall the different waves are. Oh wait, that's kinda like looking at how steep the slopes of cones are, right?

And you proved me right by just admitting that IT COULD BE purely chemical. In the court of law, you must prove guilt BEYOUND A SHADOW OF DOUBT!

The 3.5 billion year old fossils are debated. The 1 billion year old fossilized microbes I showed earlier are not. And what about all the fossils between 1 billion years and 3.5 billion years?

And when it comes to PRECAMBRIAN era, there is much doubt but little proof. There are only 30 stromatolites that date that far back and I have quoted genuine articles that cast enough doubt on their biogenic origins.

Wrong, I quoted an article stating that 122 taxa had been found dated between 2.5-1.6 billion years.

And you haven't "cast enough doubt" on all stromatolites. All you've done so far is cast doubt on the 3.5 billion year old fossils. I've said it before, there are thousands of precambrian fossils. Let's go through them. I'm not going anywhere. What do you say about the cyanobacteria from Bitter Springs Chert for example? They're dated a long time before the Cambrian period.

Thus, the evidence that life existed 3.5 billion years, is no more or less than the evidence that life also existed on mars or one of jupiter's moons.

No it's not. We don't have any fossils from Jupiter's moon Europa and the fossils from Mars are so spare that it's still an open question.
Fossils from the precambrian period are so numerous and evidently biological in nature that no scientist in his right mind would deny that life existed during the precambrian. Read:

Yet in the Proterozoic, stromatolites are so widespread and abundant, and their biological interpretation is so firmly backed by studies of microbial communities cellularly preserved in Proterozoic cherty stromatolites (e.g., Mendelson and Schopf, 1992 C.V. Mendelson and J.W. Schopf, Proterozoic and selected Early Cambrian microfossils and microfossil-like objects. In: J.W. Schopf and C. Klein, Editors, The Proterozoic Biosphere, Cambridge University Press, NY (1992), pp. 865–951.[Mendelson and Schopf, 1992], [Schopf, 1999], [Knoll, 2003a] and [Schopf et al., 2005]), that there can be no doubt that nearly all are products of biological activity.

ScienceDirect - Precambrian Research : Evidence of Archean life: Stromatolites and microfossils

　

I already told you the flaws of radiometric dating because it holds the assumption that "all else being equal" that the...

Ah, now I understand what you're saying...

1) rate of decay has been constant throughout time.

Yawn, I know, I know...The C-14 decay rate is not constant, the sunspot cycle affects its rate of decay, right? Wrong:

1. The constancy of radioactive decay is not an assumption, but is supported by evidence:

The radioactive decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measurable, at least within limits of accuracy. This is despite experiments that attempt to change decay rates (Emery 1972). Extreme pressure can cause electron-capture decay rates to increase slightly (less than 0.2 percent), but the change is small enough that it has no detectable effect on dates.

Supernovae are known to produce a large quantity of radioactive isotopes (Nomoto et al. 1997a, 1997b; Thielemann et al. 1998). These isotopes produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates. These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light-years away (Knödlseder 2000). Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago. Present decay rates are likewise consistent with observations of the gamma rays and fading rates of supernova SN1991T, which is sixty million light-years away (Prantzos 1999), and with fading rate observations of supernovae billions of light-years away (Perlmutter et al. 1998).

The Oklo reactor was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1,800 million years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost two billion years (Fujii et al. 2000; Shlyakhter 1976).

2. Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young earth would have produced enough heat to melt the earth (Meert 2002).

3. Different radioisotopes decay in different ways. It is unlikely that a variable rate would affect all the different mechanisms in the same way and to the same extent. Yet different radiometric dating techniques give consistent dates. Furthermore, radiometric dating techniques are consistent with other dating techniques, such as dendrochronology, ice core dating, and historical records (e.g., Renne et al. 1997).

4. The half-lives of radioisotopes can be predicted from first principles through quantum mechanics. Any variation would have to come from changes to fundamental constants. According to the calculations that accurately predict half-lives, any change in fundamental constants would affect decay rates of different elements disproportionally, even when the elements decay by the same mechanism (Greenlees 2000; Krane 1987).

Links:
Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovi...od-c14.html#R2

References:
Emery, G. T., 1972. Perturbation of nuclear decay rates. Annual Review Nuclear Science 22: 165-202.
Fujii, Yasunori et al., 2000. The nuclear interaction at Oklo 2 billion years ago. Nuclear Physics B 573: 377-401.
Greenlees, Paul, 2000. Theory of alpha decay. http://www.phys.jyu.fi/research/gamm...is/node26.html
Knödlseder, J., 2000. Constraints on stellar yields and Sne from gamma-ray line observations. New Astronony Reviews 44: 315-320. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9912131
Krane, Kenneth S., 1987. Introductory Nuclear Physics. New York: Wiley.
Meert, Joe, 2002. Were Adam and Eve toast? http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/adam.htm
Nomoto, K. et al., 1997a. Nucleosynthesis in type 1A supernovae. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9706025
Nomoto, K. et al., 1997b. Nucleosynthesis in type II supernovae. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9706024
Perlmutter, S. et al., 1998. Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the universe and its cosmological implications. Nature 391: 51-54. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9712212
Prantzos, N., 1999. Gamma-ray line astrophysics and stellar nucleosynthesis: perspectives for INTEGRAL. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9901373
Renne, P. R., W. D. Sharp, A. L. Deino, G. Orsi and L. Civetta, 1997. 40Ar/39Ar dating into the historical realm: Calibration against Pliny the Younger. Science 277: 1279-1280.
Shlyakhter, A. I., 1976. Direct test of the constancy of fundamental nuclear constants. Nature 264: 340. http://sdg.lcs.mit.edu/~ilya_shl/ale..._constants.pdf
Thielemann, F.-K. et al., 1998. Nucleosynthesis basics and applications to supernovae. In: Nuclear and Particle Astrophysics, J. Hirsch and D. Page, eds., Cambridge University Press, p. 27. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9802077

2). isotope abundances in the specimen dated have not been altered during its history by addition or removal of either parent or daughter isotopes

Not a problem:

1. Absolutely closed systems do not exist even under ideal laboratory conditions. Nevertheless, many rocks approximate closed systems so closely that multiple radiometric dating methods produce consistent results, within 1 percent of each other.

2. Some rocks may be open to outside contamination, but not all of them are. Most ages are determined from multiple mineral and rock samples, which give a consistent date within 1 and 3 percent. It is extremely unlikely that contamination would affect all samples by the same amount.

3. Isochron methods can detect contamination and, to some extent, correct for it. Isochrons are determined from multiple samples, and contamination would have to affect all of the samples the same way in order to create an isochron that appeared okay but was wrong (see CD002).

With uranium-lead dating, closure of the system may be tested with a concordia diagram. This takes advantage of the fact that there are two isotopes of uranium (238U and 235U) that decay to different isotopes of lead (206Pb and 207Pb, respectively). If the system has remained closed, then a plot of 206Pb / 238U versus 207Pb / 235U will fall on a known line called the concordia. Even if samples are discordant, reliable dates can often be derived (Faure 1998, 287-290).

4. Geochronologists are well aware of the dangers of contamination, and they take pains to minimize it. For example, they do not use weathered samples.
Links:
Jessey, David, n.d. Isotope geochemistry. http://geology.csupomona.edu/drjesse...0/isotope1.pdf

Stassen, Chris, 1998. Isochron dating. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
References:
Faure, Gunter, 1998. Principles and Applications of Geochemistry, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

3) when the rock first formed it contained a known amount of daughter material

Don't worry, they've already thought of it:

1. Isochron methods do not assume that the initial parent or daughter concentrations are known. In basic radiometric dating, a parent isotope (call it P) decays to a daughter isotope (D) at a predictable rate. The age can be calculated from the ratio daughter isotope to parent isotope in a sample. However, this assumes that we know how much of the daughter isotope was in the sample initially. (It also assumes that neither isotope entered or left the sample.)

With isochron dating, we also measure a different isotope of the same element as the daughter (call it D2), and we take measurements of several different minerals that formed at the same time from the same pool of materials. Instead of assuming a known amount of daughter isotope, we only assume that D/D2 is initially the same in all of the samples. Plotting P/D2 on the x axis and D/D2 on the y axis for several different samples gives a line that is initially horizontal. Over time, as P decays to D, the line remains straight, but its slope increases. The age of the sample can be calculated from the slope, and the initial concentration of the daughter element D is given by where the line meets the y axis. If D/D2 is not initially the same in all samples, the data points tend to scatter on the isochron diagram, rather than falling on a straight line.

2. For some radiometric dating techniques, the assumed initial conditions are reasonable. For example:
K-Ar (potassium-argon) dating assumes that minerals form with no argon in them. Since argon is an inert gas, it will usually be excluded from forming crystals. This assumption can be tested by looking for argon in low-potassium minerals (such as quartz), which would not contain substantial argon daughter products. 40Ar/39Ar dating and K-Ar isochron dating can also identify the presence of initial excess argon.
The concordia method is used on minerals, mostly zircon, that reject lead as they crystalize.
Radiocarbon dating is based on the relative abundance of carbon-14 in the atmosphere when a plant or animal lived. This varies somewhat, but calibration with other techniques (such as dendrochronology) allows the variations to be corrected.
Fission-track dating assumes that newly solidified minerals will not have fission tracks in them.
Links:
Stassen, Chris, 1998. Isochron dating. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

so now you admit you are wrong. Thank you for manning up to that.

I never admitted to being "wrong". I admitted the 3.5 billion year old fossils are being debated. Doesn't mean they're not biogenic in nature, it means we're not completely sure if they are. I still believe in them, I'm just giving you the benefit of the doubt because I don't really need them. We have so many precambrian fossils that it's not really a big deal to show conclusively that invertebrate life existed before the Cambrian explosion.

As for the "other fossils billions of years old". They prove nothing.

That was detailed. Care to respond to the exact fossils I pointed out above? I've got a whole list lined up if they're not good enough for you.
What they prove is that invertebrate life existed during the precambrian period.

As I stated earlier and earlier, the record shows an EXPLOSION of life during the CAMBRIAN age.

Yes.

Prior to that there was no "simple" life to "complex life".

No.

Before the Cambrian age there only invertebrates. After the Cambrian explosion there were both invertebrates and vertebrates.

Thus you have put the last nail in the coffin of evolution and proved once and for all that evolution is NOT FACT but still a theory...a very weak one.

No no no, you're not getting off that easily. Just because some fossils are debated within the scientific community it does not mean that life didn't exist in the precambrian period.

I've given some pretty conclusive examples above of other fossils. Even of fossilized microbes dating to 1 billion years. Let's debate them.

Yes. I do dispute that.
You don't seem to know the meaning of what two classifications are. Both vertebrates and invertabrates, are forms of COMPLEX LIFE!!!

1. I was talking about invertebrates in the precambrian period. Prokaryotes and eukaryotes. If you think Prokaryotes are as complex as trillion celled vertebrates then you're quite frankly stupid.

2. Even if you don't acknowledge complexity, the fact remains that organisms are different from each other. As an example I used invertebrates and vertebrates. Thus my second proposition still stands, even if you don't acknowledge complexity:

2) Living things are different from each other.

Before the Cambrian explosion, only invertebrates existed. After the Cambrian explosion, both invertebrates and vertebrates existed. Where did the vertebrates come from?

b.s

Great argument, that's sure to convince the readers. Perfect example of how you're not even trying to understand what I'm writing.

still back peddling.

Still failing to understand what I wrote originally.

no such thing as foe. you just admitted that above.

No, I didn't. You're putting words in my mouth.

so the supposition that simple leads to complex is false. as all complex life came about together.

God you've got a thick head.

Simple life, I.E. single celled organisms, existed before and after the Cambrian explosion. Complex life I.E. trillion celled organisms existed only after the Cambrian explosion. THUS the complex life must have come from the simple life.

Don't like complexity? Okay:

Invertebrates existed before and after the Cambrian explosion. Vertebrates existed only after the Cambrian explosion. THUS the vertebrates must have come from the invertebrates.

This is of course taking into account my 1. and 2. proposition.

I quoted you enough sources above.

You've quoted sources that debate the biogenicity of the 3.5 billion year old fossils and warn that people should be cautious when stating stromatolites of such age are biological in nature. In response I've given you evidence of other fossils that are undisputed, including a fossilized microbe.

Then you've quoted a source that actually supports the 3.5 billion year old fossils and declared that they're all guessing because they're just "looking" at features of the stromatolites. I've pointed out that you know nothing of how geobiology works and thanked you for posting a source that supports my viewpoint.

You are quoting websites that are behind 30 years.

That's because you're 30 years behind. Seriously though, I've quoted from articles written in the last 10 years above...

"EXPLAINS HOW"?
How?
you said the process doesn't matter...and now you say it says how... how? Where is the proof for speciation?

Sorry, I used the wrong wording. The FoE simply means the development of forms of animal and plant life out of forms significantly different from them. It does not make any claims about how the process occurs.
The process is explained by the ToE but is really irrelevant to whether the FoE is true or not.

yeah...

Happy you agree for once...

but admitting that stromatolites could just be natural rock formations, you pretty much admitted that simple life does not predate complex life and thus admit that there is no "linkages" between the different species..or your belief that one species evolved into another ..that is prokaryotes to eukaryotes....cells with no nucleas, to ones with nucleas.

No, just because some stromatolites could be natural rock formations it does not mean that prokayotes did not exist during the precambrian period.
You know what I mean, stop being disingenuous and putting words in my mouth.

Ask Lenin:
"All of Marx’s theory is the most consistent, complete, well thought out and essential application to contemporary capitalism of the theory of evolution. The great value of Marx’s statements here, too, is to consistently apply materialistic dialectic and the theory of evolution, and to regard communism as something developing out of capitalism."
(Viladimir I. Lenin, Devlet ve Ihtilal, Marksist Devlet Ögretisi ve Proleteryanin Devrimdeki Görevleri (State and Revolution, Marxist Teaching of State and Duties of the Proletariat in Revolution)Vol. 1)
Or let's ask Lord Wikipedia:
Lenin's contributions
Dialectical materialism was first elaborated by Lenin in Materialism and Empiriocriticism in 1908 around three axes: the "materialist inversion" of Hegelian dialectics, the historicity of ethical principles ordered to class struggle and the convergence of "laws of evolution" in physics (Helmholtz), biology (Darwin) and in political economics (Marx). Lenin hence took position between a historicist Marxism (Labriola) and a determinist Marxism, close to "social Darwinism" (Kautsky). New discoveries in physics, including x-rays, electrons, and the beginnings of quantum mechanics challenged previous conceptions of matter and materialism. Matter seemed to be disappearing. Lenin disagreed:
'Matter disappears' means that the limit within which we have hitherto known matter disappears and that our knowledge is penetrating deeper; properties of matter are disappearing that formerly seemed absolute, immutable and primary, and which are now revealed to be relative and characteristic only of certain states of matter. For the sole 'property' of matter with whose recognition philosophical materialism is bound up is the property of being an objective reality, of existing outside of the mind.
Lenin was following on from the work of Friedrich Engels, who had noted that "with each epoch-making discovery even in the sphere of natural science, materialism has to change its form."[14] One of Lenin's challenges was distancing materialism as a viable philosophical outlook from what he referred to as the "vulgar materialism" expressed in statements like "the brain secretes thought in the same way as the liver secretes bile" (attributed to 18th century physician Pierre Jean Georges Cabanis, 1757-1808); "metaphysical materialism" (matter is composed of immutable, unchanging particles); and 19th-century "mechanical materialism" (matter was like little molecular billiard balls interacting according to simple laws of mechanics). Lenin's (and Engels') solution to this challenge was "dialectical materialism", where matter was understood in the broader sense of "objective reality" and consistent with new developments in science.
How about a friend named Leon Trotsky.
Leon Trotsky: The ABC of Materialist Dialectics (1939)
You guys think I am just farting nonsense?

So wait, because Lenin and Trotsky liked/were inspired by evolution, suddenly evolution is based on dialectical materialism? What is this, upside down world? Yeah I think you're farting nonsense.

Anyway, even if this was right (which it's not) it's completely irrelevant to whether or not the FoE is scientific or not. Thus, I won't be discussing the matter further.

So this was your FIRST attempt at using scientific sources to back your delusions up. And in the process you came to the realization that 3.5 billion yrs is in dispute.

Actually Wikipedia made me realise that:

The earliest identified organisms were minute and relatively featureless, and their fossils look like small rods, which are very difficult to tell apart from structures that arise through abiotic physical processes. The oldest undisputed evidence of life on Earth, interpreted as fossilized bacteria, dates to 3,000 million years ago.[27] Other finds in rocks dated to about 3,500 million years ago have been interpreted as bacteria,[28] with geochemical evidence also seeming to show the presence of life 3,800 million years ago.[29] However these analyses were closely scrutinized, and non-biological processes were found which could produce all of the "signatures of life" that had been reported.[30]HYPERLINK \l "cite_note-30"[31] While this does not prove that the structures found had a non-biological origin, they cannot be taken as clear evidence for the presence of life. Geochemical signatures from rocks deposited 3,400 million years ago have been interpreted as evidence for life,[27]HYPERLINK \l "cite_note-31"[32] although these statements have not been thoroughly examined by critics.

That there are NO DIRECT evidence of fossils existing that far back.

Fossils are direct evidence.

Now I have posted you enough sources admitting that simple life could not predate complex life.

No, you haven't, as stated above.

Eukaryotes, Archaea and Bacteria were all existing simultaneously.

Yes, after the Cambrian explosion. Not before.

Invertebrates and vertebrates, (rather all classes of living things) emerged together during the cambrian explosion.

Laughable, evidence as above.

Thus your belief that simple life predates complex and therefore simple life evolved into complex life is FALLACIOUS.

Only if disagree that single celled organisms are less complex than trillion celled organisms.
We can talk about it in terms of invertebrates and vertebrates if you want to. The point is that organisms are different from each other.

Based on conjectures! Not Facts. And hence, FOE is your own belief system, which is based on dialectical materialism - that material changes (thus the link between marx and darwin).

- "and Marx, and Lenin, and Trotsky, and Mao, and Hitler and...and...and Evolution!!!"

Hahaha

Lastly, the only crack in your theory left is the dating methodology which I haven't expounded on yet. However, if we do go into that I will show you in detail how radiometric dating is flawed as well.

Looking forward to it.

Thus in conclusion, your belief that one life form "evolved" into another life form billions of years ago, holds as much water as the belief that earth is only 6 000 years old and is flat.

You should be happy that you've got this online site to debate it. If you were to expound your beliefs in a scientific environment of paleontologists and geobiologists you'd be a laughing stock and frankly people would not even respond to you. That's how far out your claims are.

I'm not even joking, if you were to claim in a scientific community that invertebrates didn't exist before the Cambrian explosion and radiometric dating doesn't work people would simply laugh at you.

I know you think all the thousands of paleontologists, who have spend all their life dealing with these subjects, are all brainwashed. Well, they're not. In fact I recommend you get in touch with one and ask him about stromatolites, he'll be able to talk all day about how they identify and date them. I'm serious, you've got a lot of things wrong about paleontology, maybe the only way to convince you is if you had a day in the field with the people who live and breath it.

[طالب]

That's what I'm trying to say, maybe Alchemist should get out more.

By the way Alchemist I just found an interesting letter in Nature that uses nanoscale studies to show that 2.7 billion year old stromatolites from the Tumbiana Formation contain "organic globule clusters within the thin layers of the stromatolites":

The use of high-resolution microscopy enabled us to reveal abundant cell-like organic globules in the Tumbiana stromatolites. In addition, nanospectroscopy revealed that these globules present many organic functional groups similar to those found in modern bacteria. Our results thus suggest that some microfossils can be preserved in ancient stromatolites owing to their encapsulation by carbonate minerals, which is observed in recent analogues3,4. Most importantly, the organic globules described here are exclusively associated with the carbonate layers and intimately associated with micrite and nano-aragonite. Accordingly, they might represent material that was preserved in early diagenetic micrite formed after original aragonite2 resulting from microbial lithification. The nanometre-scale similarities between the modern and the Tumbiana stromatolites support the view that the latter were partly built through in situ precipitation of aragonite in a fashion very similar to that described for their modern counterparts. The method used here provides powerful new means of investigating the role of microbial materials in the formation of the oldest stromatolite remains on Earth.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...l/ngeo107.html

[Alchemist]

I have now become cognizant of the real problem here.
I have already shown how debunked the "theory" of evolution is by pointing out the flaws in it's most basic assumptions. And if you read every pro-evolutionist on this thread, each one of the writes what they want whimsically and speculatively without even using the vocabulary of biology. It goes to show the deficiency is not only in the theory it self but in the psychology of it's proponents.

Mountain goat, who has self taught himself biology and has been thanked numerous times by pro-evolutionists, because he has regurgitated the polemics of atheists, who believe that life emerged on earth spontaneously, and chooses to quote from talkorigin and wikipedia because of his own limitations.

And this is what I want to address in this post. Because talking to an uneducated person on the details of evolution would be futile when that person does not even understand the basics.

3.8 billion years ago there existed life in the form of simple cells (prokaryotes).

Again you are talking about the origin of life. It doesn't matter how it all started, what matters is that 3.8 billion years ago there were no human beings

All you need to know is this:
1. 3.8 billion years ago there living, single celled organisms existed on earth. There were no humans on earth.

The fossil record shows single celled organisms dating as far back as 3.5 billion years.

3.8 billion years ago single celled organism existed on earth, but there were no humans.

[QUOTE=Mountain Goat;416683]The invertebrates that existed 3.5 billion years ago were much less complex than the organisms that exist today

The only rational explanation is that we came from those simple organisms 3.8 billion years ago.... Therefore we must have come from life before us, which, 3.8 billion years ago, was a single celled organism. [IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/SUPERM%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]

1. Listen, this is pretty much agreed on by everyone. Wikipidia states the first living organisms to be more than 4 billion years old. I can post a few news articles that talk about the 3.5 billion year old fossils. It wouldn't take me more than a few minutes on google, you can even do it yourself.

After saying 3.8 – 3.5 billion years 20 times, then saying this:

I have just found out that the 3.5 billion figure is in dispute. It cannot be ruled out that the fossils are not biological in nature. However, I was just using the 3.5 billion year figure as an example. I did a quick search for the earliest fossils and found the article about the 3.5 billion old stromatolites

Obviously the individual cannot adjust to this new found reality quickly. Still he has to rationalize his own mistake in order to protect his ego after internalizing this false belief. After all he debated so many people before he debated me, so he can’t admit being wrong to all of them. Even though, he should have checked if this 3.5 billion record was true before he formed his opinion on evolution, he blindly accepted it as “fact”. So now it’s 2.7 billion years for him. But that’s irrelevant now, because the argument was that simple life predated complex life. And here is where the second fatal mistake of his occurs, his inability to understand the difference between “simple” and “complex”. Now, ask any 5th grader what is a vertebrate and invertebrate and they will tell you that they are classifications for the ANIMAL kingdom. Yet every time he wants to use an example of an invertebrate predating vertebrates, he uses a unicellular organism, like bacteria, of which there is no direct “observable” evidence for save stromatolites. It’s like saying a shoe is in the same class as a car, that is, a vehicle. Now how am I to argue with him and explain to him that a shoe is not a vehicle, or rather, a unicellular organism is not an invertebrate.
Further evidence of the same mindless repetition:

simpler forms were around before the more complex forms (e.g. invertebrates before vertebrates, single celled organisms before humans)

EVIDENCE: Fossil record shows that invertebrates existed on earth billions of years before vertebrates

Seing as how invertebrates are less complex than vertebrates, it is evidence that simple organisms existed on earth before more complex ones.

If you disagree that invertebrates existed on earth before vertebrates, please explain to me why there has not been found a vertebrate fossil dating before 600 million years, while there have been found invertebrate fossils dating up to 3.5 billion years ago.
What I said was that simple organisms existed on earth before more complex ones. As an example of that I use invertebrates and vertebrates. The fact remains that 3.5 billion years ago organisms were more simple, there were no vertebrates. Around 600 million years ago vertebrates started appearing.
I'm trying to make. 3.5 billion years ago there were no vertebrates, only invertebrates
Even if a turtle or a cockroach are the same after a number of years, the fact still remains that 3.5 billion years ago there were no vertebrates, only invertebrates. So where did the vertebrates come from?
Just because some species didn't evolve, it doesn't negate the fact that invertebrates existed before vertebrates and thus vertebrates must have come from the invertebrates.


All I said was that animal and plants species develop out of other species not at all like them. E.g. vertebrates came from invertebrates.

As an example of that I use invertebrates and vertebrates. The fact remains that 3.5 billion years ago organisms were more simple, there were no vertebrates. Around 600 million years ago vertebrates started appearing.

The fact remains that invertebrates existed on earth billions of years before vertebrates did.

Fortunately, you are wrong. Invertebrates and vertebrates did not come into existence during the same epoch. The Cambrian explosion occurred around 530 million years ago, but the earliest invertebrates date back billions of years. Source:
4.5 billion years - Earth was formed.

3.5 billion years - earliest invertebrates

0.525 billion years - earliest vertebrates

No vertebrate fossil has been found before 525 million years. Not 500, not 250, not 100, not 5, not 1, 0/zero/nil/nothing/no/not a single vertebrate fossil has been found dating before 525 million years.

...but many thousands of invertebrates have been found dating 3 billion, 2 billion, 1 billion years ago...
I'm not claiming the 3.5 billion year old fossils are not in dispute, I'm saying that even if they were found to be abiogenic, we would still have thousands of invertebrate fossils dated 1-2.5 billion years old which are not doubted.

I was using the 3.5 billion year old fossils as an example. Going back to 3.0 billion year old fossils is not a problem. Or 2.5, or 2.0, or 1.5, or 1.0 billion years.

The only way you can bring my third premise into doubt is if you cast doubt on all the fossils from 3.5 billion years ago up til the Cambrian where vertebrates are first found


Do you believe these Proterozoic prokaryotes, i.e. single celled organisms:
....
1. I was talking about invertebrates in the precambrian period. Prokaryotes and eukaryotes. If you think Prokaryotes are as complex as trillion celled vertebrates then you're quite frankly stupid.

What are invertebrates?

For Allah's sake, please click here.

So you are wrong. Dead wrong. But I am stupid, for arguing with you.
I know you will make an excuse for your ignorance here, but this is too basic to screw up on. The problem is that the biggest proponent of evolution is guys like you, who don’t even know the difference between vertebrates/invertebrates (animals) and unicellular organisms . The first fossil of an invertebrate dates back to 570 – 600 million years, the first vertebrate dates back to rough 550 million years. And like you said, what’s the difference between 50 million years, plus or minus when are talking of billions?

We know from the fossil record that simple animals and plants existed on earth long before complex ones

Actually, the real problem is that you lack the understanding of the complexity of eukaryotic cells in itself, as even single celled organisms. You can’t appreciate the countless mechanisms and processes that are required to convert sunlight to energy. Yet ask any engineer, who is tasked to reproduce the same results using mechanical devices, like photo electric plates, he will simply marvel at the efficiency of one measly chloroplast. Marvel, at the ingenuity of the design of a rod cell, irreducible complexes that are impossible to spontaneously form, fully functioning. Afala Ta3qiloon?
Now if quote his first, proposition, it would be another 2000 words of repetition of the same phrase: “living thing comes form living things, so where did we come from?”. Fine, let’s entertain the idea that human beings evolved from bacteria, but then the question arises what did the bacteria evolve from? A piece of rock? From a non living thing? Oh, how convienently he dismisses this with the next phrase “Evolution does not concern it self with the origin of life”. Fine, then why explain the origin of man from bacteria? Silly, isn’t it?

Then he has the audacity to say to me:

1. The age of the Earth is not 4.3 billion years old, it's 4.5 billion years old. Read the first line on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

2. 4.3 billion years minus 3.5 billion years old is not 300 million years, it's 700 million years. If we use the figure of 4.5 billion years, the fossils are 1 billion years old. Windows has a built-in calculator if you don't know how to subtract. Protip: use it.

Excuse me, sir, for being off by 200 million years

The fossil record. The earth is 6 billion years old.

How old is the sun by the way?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+old+is+the+sun&l=1

I’ll give you credit for one thing though - you know your self very well, “Mountain goat”. 15,000 words of repetition of just three or four phrases! This is how mountain goats have to be! Since they live on mountains, and walk on steep and narrow paths, sometimes one mountain goat, has to head butt another mountain goat off it’s path or die trying. This is why mountain goats have to repeatedly butt heads, like you keep mindlessly repeating the same thing, over and over and over again, until they die trying. I am not a mountain goat. Your next response, will predictably be the same. For all I care, you can ram your head all day and all night long. The simple fact of the matter remains that you don’t know what you are talking about.

Salam.

[طالب]

This is it, then

I have now become cognizant of the real problem here.
I have already shown how debunked the "theory" of evolution is by pointing out the flaws in it's most basic assumptions. And if you read every pro-evolutionist on this thread, each one of the writes what they want whimsically and speculatively without even using the vocabulary of biology. It goes to show the deficiency is not only in the theory it self but in the psychology of it's proponents.

Mountain goat, who has self taught himself biology and has been thanked numerous times by pro-evolutionists, because he has regurgitated the polemics of atheists, who believe that life emerged on earth spontaneously

Irrelevant, unless you can actually point out where we're not using the vocabulary of biology and that our arguments are flawed.

and chooses to quote from talkorigin and wikipedia because of his own limitations.

Talkorigins and Wikipedia are both referenced, if you have a problem with what is written you have to point out exactly where and how the referenced material is wrong. It would also be preferred if you posted credible sources of your own to counter the sources used in Wikipedia and Talkorigins.

Until you do that all your accusations are empty. I'm sorry but the world does not revolve around you. The statements that you make are not true simply because you said so.

And this is what I want to address in this post. Because talking to an uneducated person on the details of evolution would be futile when that person does not even understand the basics.

You haven't explained which basics I fail to understand. You should point them out so we can judge the merits of your accusations on our own. Unless of course you're of the belief that we should simply acknowledge everything you say as truth because you said so?

After saying 3.8 – 3.5 billion years 20 times, then saying this:

Obviously the individual cannot adjust to this new found reality quickly. Still he has to rationalize his own mistake in order to protect his ego after internalizing this false belief. After all he debated so many people before he debated me, so he can’t admit being wrong to all of them.

But, I'm not wrong. The fossils are in dispute. They're being debated. Don't you understand the word dispute? It doesn't mean the fossils are not biological, it means it is being discussed whether or not the fossils are biological.

And even if the fossils do turn out to be abiogenetic in nature, so what? It doesn't hurt my argument because there are still thousands of other fossils from the precambrian era that prove my point, i.e. that invertebrates existed before the Cambrian explosion.

Might I also point out that you've been proved wrong numerous times throughout this thread but you've never admitted to being wrong. The reason I don't grind it in every time you're wrong is because I acknowledge the fact that just because a person is wrong about something does not mean he's wrong about everything.

Even though, he should have checked if this 3.5 billion record was true before he formed his opinion on evolution, he blindly accepted it as “fact”.

No, I checked if the information was sourced and it was. The sources ranged from scientific articles to books. I really don't need to do more than that. If you point out flaws in the sources then of course I'll have to take it into account, and I did. I admitted the fossils were in dispute.

You see one of the tricks you're trying to pull off here is to try to draw the parallel that because some of the 3.5 billion year old fossils are in dispute, all of the precambrian fossils are in dispute. This is simply not true.

So now it’s 2.7 billion years for him.

You're trying to allege that I'm moving goal posts. But I already pointed out 5 pages ago that it doesn't matter if the invertebrates are 3.5, 3.0, 2.5, 2.0, 1.5 or 1.0 billion years old. They all prove my point as long as the fossils date before the Cambrian explosion.

But that’s irrelevant now, because the argument was that simple life predated complex life. And here is where the second fatal mistake of his occurs, his inability to understand the difference between “simple” and “complex”.

Now, ask any 5th grader what is a vertebrate and invertebrate and they will tell you that they are classifications for the ANIMAL kingdom. Yet every time he wants to use an example of an invertebrate predating vertebrates, he uses a unicellular organism, like bacteria, of which there is no direct “observable” evidence for save stromatolites.

False, there are also microfossils.

The reason why I use unicellular organisms is because I'm talking about precambrian invertebrates. Precambrian invertebrates didn't really have a whole lot of cells you know.

My point, which I've stated repeatedly throughout this thread, was that simple (by simple I mean of very few cells) invertebrates existed on earth billions of years ago, long before complex (by complex I mean millions if not trillions of cells) organisms (for example vertebrates) did.

Then you suddenly had a problem with me using the term "complex". So I stated that the term is really not needed in order to prove my point. We can just as well say that invertebrates existed before vertebrates on this earth, and leave out complexity.

Whichever way you want to put it, the fact remains that some organisms (simple, invertebrates, whatever) existed on earth before other organisms (complex, vertebrates, whatever) and thus those "other" organisms must have come from the previous ones! (Of course, this conclusion is reached taking into account my first two propositions)

It’s like saying a shoe is in the same class as a car, that is, a vehicle.

Not really, because I repeatedly made clear that the invertebrates I was talking about were precambrian, thus they were simpe in the sense that they had few cells compared to the vertebrates of the Cambrian era who had many cells and hence were more complex.

Of course, making the statement that the trillion celled invertebrates of today are less complex than vertebrates would be nonsense. Fortunately that was never part of my argument.

Now how am I to argue with him and explain to him that a shoe is not a vehicle, or rather, a unicellular organism is not an invertebrate.

I now understand why you're confused. You seem to believe that a unicellular organism can not be an invertebrate.

That is false.

An invertebrate is simply an organism without a backbone. Cyanobacteria are an example of a unicellular organism. Cyanobacteria do not have a backbone. Hence they are invertebrates.

Further evidence of the same mindless repetition:

All those quotes seem to be correct except for the one where I state that "invertebrates are less complex than vertebrates". I should have made clear I was talking about precambrian invertebrates.

The first fossil of an invertebrate dates back to 570 – 600 million years, the first vertebrate dates back to rough 550 million years. And like you said, what’s the difference between 50 million years, plus or minus when are talking of billions?

This is false. The first fossils of invertebrates date back billions of years. I've given you numerous examples in the previous post, here is another:


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...e&searchtype=a

And:

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobio...an-Fossils.htm

I know you believe the above site is just brainwashed by the evolution conspiracy but I provide it anyway for the people reading this who aren't paranoid maniacs.

Actually, the real problem is that you lack the understanding of the complexity of eukaryotic cells in itself, as even single celled organisms. You can’t appreciate the countless mechanisms and processes that are required to convert sunlight to energy. Yet ask any engineer, who is tasked to reproduce the same results using mechanical devices, like photo electric plates, he will simply marvel at the efficiency of one measly chloroplast. Marvel, at the ingenuity of the design of a rod cell, irreducible complexes that are impossible to spontaneously form, fully functioning. Afala Ta3qiloon?

Okay, you believe a single celled organisms is just as complex as a trillion celled organism. I knew you wouldn't acknowledge complixity, that's why I also used the example of invertebrate/vertebrate. I.e. we know invertebrates existed before vertebrates. We know invertebrates existed during the precambrian era.

I'm sure you'll find a way to dismiss those classifications as well though. I suppose the cyanobacteria have a backbone hidden away somewhere?

Now if quote his first, proposition, it would be another 2000 words of repetition of the same phrase: “living thing comes form living things, so where did we come from?”. Fine, let’s entertain the idea that human beings evolved from bacteria, but then the question arises what did the bacteria evolve from? A piece of rock? From a non living thing? Oh, how convienently he dismisses this with the next phrase “Evolution does not concern it self with the origin of life”. Fine, then why explain the origin of man from bacteria? Silly, isn’t it?

No, a scientific theory doesn't have to explain every little detail in order to be valid. I've posted this before, but you must've missed it:

The most common objection to the case made for evolution is the question, "But what about the origin of life?" What about it, indeed? As the article itself makes clear, questions about the origin of life, though addressing a related issue, are red herrings, since evolution concerns itself with the diversity of species once life is established on earth, not with how life first began. So such a question is rather like raising doubts about how steel is made in any argument about how a car engine works. Naturally, the origin of life on earth is a fascinating issue, one which scientists continue to explore. They have come up with a number of hypothetical possibilities, but as yet there is no favourite theory, nothing which has yielded a wealth of predictions which one can easily test to confirm or reject the hypothesis.
Some correspondents seem to think there is a contradiction in claiming that living things must have a living parent and the fact that we don't yet have a scientific theory which explains fully how life on earth began and that until that question can be answered, all scientific thinking about the development of species is invalid. But that is nonsense. We don't know many things about the most basic cell operations of, say, many viruses and bacteria, and in most cases we don't know (and certainly don't need to know) the scientific origin of a particular agent of infection (its first appearance on earth), but we can still understand the way infectious organisms develop and change to affect people for the worse, and, on the basis of this knowledge, we can treat many diseases successfully. Would those who reject evolution on the basis of this faulty objection make the same claim about modern medicine and refuse to see a doctor when they need help to recover from an infection because there is an important "contradiction" in his understanding of the disease if he doesn't know when and how it first appeared?

Then he has the audacity to say to me:

Excuse me, sir, for being off by 200 million years

Apology accepted.

How old is the sun by the way?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+old+is+the+sun&l=1

Okay so I made a typo, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. The fact that I used the 4.5 figure to correct your calculation just before should make that clear.

Seriously is this the best you can come up with?

I’ll give you credit for one thing though - you know your self very well, “Mountain goat”. 15,000 words of repetition of just three or four phrases!

Yeah, and you still fail to get it. That's the great thing about the FoE, it's very easy to defend and people like you don't know which leg to stand on. It's an airtight argument.

Of course there will always be conspiracy theorists who refuse to believe evidence. So if you refuse to believe in the thousands of fossils from the precambrian era there is nothing I can do. There is nothing anybody can do. I can only recommend you go see a paleontologist who'll be able to take you along to see some of the fossils in person. But I doubt even that will convince you.

What can I say? Even today there are people who believe the Earth is flat.

To anybody else in doubt all I can say is; go visit a museum of natural history. Go speak to a real paleontologist, a real geobiologist. I'm sure they'd love to show you the fossils and explain them.

I am not a mountain goat.

Maybe you should become one.

Your next response, will predictably be the same. For all I care, you can ram your head all day and all night long. The simple fact of the matter remains that you don’t know what you are talking about.

If you have any futher questions, be sure to post. I'll be happy to answer them.

Salam.

Walaikum assalam.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Scimitar,

Alchemist is one of those guys who will disagree for the sake of disagreeing. If you said that gravity is real, he would find the irregularity of gravity when applying to quantum mechanics and say therefore gravity is false.

If you say the Big Bang theory is relevant, he would find the alternate theory (e.g. Endless Universe theory), then say that you reject God.

Then he'll go into a metaphysical tangent about God and dialectical materialism and then chest thump at how 'smart' he is. Probably followed by accusations that you hate Islam and are probably an Ismaeli double-agent, lol.

yeah he pulled Harun Yahya arguments on MSN. he's a good brother but often gets blindsided by hiw own assessments.

[Alchemist]

An invertebrate is simply an organism without a backbone. Cyanobacteria are an example of a unicellular organism. Cyanobacteria do not have a backbone. Hence they are invertebrates.

lol

come on...

seriously?

didn't i say?
you are predictable - stubborn as a mountain goat.


fine ...

[طالب]

lol

come on...

seriously?

didn't i say?
you are predictable - stubborn as a mountain goat.


fine ...

...

a unicellular organism is not an invertebrate

[Alchemist]

yeah he pulled Harun Yahya arguments on MSN. he's a good brother but often gets blindsided by hiw own assessments.

the space filled between electrons and the nucleas is "electrostatic"? lol

your something else too scimitar ... haughty and over confident. Yet your proof for speciation was some bogus experiment where flies preferred one mate over another - it's called sexual selection, nothing to do with natural selection, the proposed mechanism of speciation.

Then again,

the challenges still remain. Our idiotic friend goat seems to believe that bacteria is a subcategory of animal. Then if you tell him eukaryotes and prokaryotes have co-existed and present evidence of it, simply doesn't understand it. Mid night is convinced that humans didn't exist up until 50,000 years ago, despite the archeological evidence of conscious people roaming the earth. And you seem convinced that Allah cannot create something out of nothing, and because wikipedia makes a reference to some "muslim" believing in a type of evolution, you think it has islamic validity. But the challenges still remain - provide proof of speciation, where is the fossil of the half dinosaur half bird? Provide one good example of beneficial mutation. And prove any of the above wrong. Or you can do what mountain goat is doing, just say I am wrong and deny it all. Somon, Bokmon, 3moyon.

None of you can debate with me on the facts. You want to say I am harun yahya? What's wrong with harun yahya? He uses primary sources and references for every fact, so really his arguments are the arguments of biologists and palentologist. But you chide me like this? You use the same type of arguments as mountain goats, believing this to be a debate between religion vs science? And hence science must trump religion? Well, good luck with that nobel prize brother.

So far the only afghan that I have known to claim to be completely rational has turned out to be totally irrational here. You side with goat, sun and leevanay on this? Based on what rational? You mean to say you believe what goat believes? LOL. The common factor between all of you is that none of you are well versed on the subject. Yet you blindly believe it to be true, simply because you have been "Educated" to believe it so. It's ironic, how you notice this in others, but not about your self. Really it encapsulates your weaknesses here. To believe that you know the Qur'an better than Allah. Anyway...separate discussion and I ll make a separate thread. Come there if you dare.