Where do we come from?

[friend]

(biology 101?). Chimps and monkeys aren’t in the same
family, but humans and chimps are? Strange beliefs
👀mmmmmmmmm!!

[friend]

May 9, 2018 1:25:58 GMT -5 friend said:

(biology 101?). Chimps and monkeys aren’t in the same
family, but humans and chimps are? Strange beliefs
👀mmmmmmmmm!!

just ignore the phenotypes 🤥🤦🏻‍♂️

[Deleted]

May 9, 2018 1:25:58 GMT -5 friend said:

(biology 101?). Chimps and monkeys aren’t in the same
family, but humans and chimps are? Strange beliefs
👀mmmmmmmmm!!

This may aid your understanding. Matt10

wonderopolis.org/wonder/whats-the-difference-between-apes-and-monkeys

[friend]

May 9, 2018 1:25:58 GMT -5 friend said:

(biology 101?). Chimps and monkeys aren’t in the same
family, but humans and chimps are? Strange beliefs
👀mmmmmmmmm!![/


(biology 1.01). The “Sharing of a common ancestor” that is now extinct,
but exists in theoretical myths....🤦🏻‍♂️

[friend]

May 8, 2018 2:09:43 GMT -5 friend said:

was listening and reading about judicial debates.

there is always a possibility that the convicted felon

did not commit the said felony crime.

It’s impossible to prove guilt beyond a possible doubt!

There will always exist a possibility of innocence ,

BUT the courts determine if this possibility is probable ..

and the verdict is given in favor of the judges finding

“Beyond reasonable doubt (not no doubts)”

As an improbable explanation is usually very unreasonable .


So it is when we are “debating” issues on a forum ,

Absolute Proof is elusive, beyond reasonable doubt

is the best proof of anything outside of mathematical

Formulas and Theorums and postulates.

Hmmm👀

all “darwinianism “ is , is a unreasonable assumption

[friend]

Good biology class,! Thanks for the tip!


youtu.be/xlN6kcRdYQg

[rational]

May 9, 2018 1:03:43 GMT -5 friend said:

May 8, 2018 23:50:28 GMT -5 rational said:

Good for you. I have always said that a biology 101 course would to to your benefit.

your referencing of theories can’t  replace the
 lectures that you continue to ignore?

that is your choice, i do not support theories that
are based on lies!  Thanks 

I will try one more time.
Provide an example of a theory that you feel is based on a lie with some verifiable (Hint - that means published and peer reviewed) and we can go from there. It would help if the person responsible for the evidence had some training in the field or at least a related field.

I am sure there are others reading here that would help as well. But if you veer off the topic and begin to babble on with unsupported tales and YouTube examples you are on your own.

[dmmichgood]

May 9, 2018 1:53:09 GMT -5 friend said:

all “darwinianism “ is , is a unreasonable assumption

Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

            Stefan Lovgren
 National Geographic News
August 31, 2005

Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species.

"Darwin wasn't just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes—he didn't go far enough," said Frans de Waal, a primate scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. "We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament."

Because chimpanzees are our closest living relatives, the chimp genome is the most useful key to understanding human biology and evolution, next to the human genome itself. The breakthrough will aid scientists in their mission to learn what sets us apart from other animals.

By comparing human and chimpanzee genomes, the researchers have identified several sequences of genetic code that differ between human and chimp. These sequences may hold the most promise for determining what creates human-specific traits such as speech.

            cont. news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

[friend]

May 9, 2018 8:03:06 GMT -5 rational said:

May 9, 2018 1:03:43 GMT -5 friend said:

your referencing of theories can’t  replace the
 lectures that you continue to ignore?

that is your choice, i do not support theories that
are based on lies!  Thanks 

I will try one more time.
Provide an example of a theory that you feel is based on a lie with some verifiable (Hint - that means published and peer reviewed) and we can go from there. It would help if the person responsible for the evidence had some training in the field or at least a related field.

I am sure there are others reading here that would help as well. But if you veer off the topic and begin to babble on with unsupported tales and YouTube examples you are on your own.

As in court, the judge rules in favor of “beyond reasonable doubt” , and you haven’t provided
any evidence to support that God didn’t create 
Creation . 

Your babbling about darwinianism is based
on myths that go far far past what reason allows
humanity to consider.  (?darwinianism takes 
an enormous amount of unreasonable assumptions)

[friend]

May 9, 2018 10:47:19 GMT -5 dmmichgood said:

May 9, 2018 1:53:09 GMT -5 friend said:

all “darwinianism “ is , is a unreasonable assumption

Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

            Stefan Lovgren
 National Geographic News
August 31, 2005

Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species.

"Darwin wasn't just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes—he didn't go far enough," said Frans de Waal, a primate scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. "We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament."

Because chimpanzees are our closest living relatives, the chimp genome is the most useful key to understanding human biology and evolution, next to the human genome itself. The breakthrough will aid scientists in their mission to learn what sets us apart from other animals.

By comparing human and chimpanzee genomes, the researchers have identified several sequences of genetic code that differ between human and chimp. These sequences may hold the most promise for determining what creates human-specific traits such as speech.

            cont. news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

Ha, you don’t want me to insult your gurus do you?

😁

[curlywurlysammagee]

May 9, 2018 12:32:38 GMT -5 friend said:

May 9, 2018 8:03:06 GMT -5 rational said:

I will try one more time.
Provide an example of a theory that you feel is based on a lie with some verifiable (Hint - that means published and peer reviewed) and we can go from there. It would help if the person responsible for the evidence had some training in the field or at least a related field.

I am sure there are others reading here that would help as well. But if you veer off the topic and begin to babble on with unsupported tales and YouTube examples you are on your own.

As in court, the judge rules in favor of “beyond reasonable doubt” , and you haven’t provided
any evidence to support that God didn’t create 
Creation . 

Your babbling about darwinianism is based
on myths that go far far past what reason allows
humanity to consider.  (?darwinianism takes 
an enormous amount of unreasonable assumptions)

Friend, if you keep writing nonsense like you do, it may one day attract a few followers and you could have a religion all of your own.
So far you have not raised one valid point that can be verified, despite countless posts.
Down here we would call you an oxygen thief.

[friend]

May 9, 2018 13:11:17 GMT -5 curlywurlysammagee said:

May 9, 2018 12:32:38 GMT -5 friend said:

As in court, the judge rules in favor of “beyond reasonable doubt” , and you haven’t provided
any evidence to support that God didn’t create 
Creation . 

Your babbling about darwinianism is based
on myths that go far far past what reason allows
humanity to consider.  (?darwinianism takes 
an enormous amount of unreasonable assumptions)

Friend, if you keep writing nonsense like you do, it
may one day attract a few followers and you could have a religion all of your own.
So far you have not raised one valid point that can be verified, despite countless posts.
Down here we would call you an oxygen thief.

[



hmmm, those tree huggers try to get you liberals to buy
CO2 , too

Sad , huh?

Over here we have enough CO2, to give away our
Oxygen !



sorry it isn’t a universal programme !

🤷‍♂️

[rational]

May 9, 2018 12:32:38 GMT -5 friend said:

May 9, 2018 8:03:06 GMT -5 rational said:

I will try one more time.
Provide an example of a theory that you feel is based on a lie with some verifiable (Hint - that means published and peer reviewed) and we can go from there. It would help if the person responsible for the evidence had some training in the field or at least a related field.

I am sure there are others reading here that would help as well. But if you veer off the topic and begin to babble on with unsupported tales and YouTube examples you are on your own.

As in court, the judge rules in favor of “beyond reasonable doubt” , and you haven’t provided
any evidence to support that God didn’t create 
Creation . 

Your babbling about darwinianism is based
on myths that go far far past what reason allows
humanity to consider.  (?darwinianism takes 
an enormous amount of unreasonable assumptions)

And I have no evidence that you were not created by a neutered unicorn.

But concerning the original offer to enter into a discussion - I guess that isn't going to work out.

[dmmichgood]

May 9, 2018 12:35:34 GMT -5 friend said:

May 9, 2018 10:47:19 GMT -5 dmmichgood said:

Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

            Stefan Lovgren
 National Geographic News
August 31, 2005

Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species.

"Darwin wasn't just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes—he didn't go far enough," said Frans de Waal, a primate scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. "We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament."

Because chimpanzees are our closest living relatives, the chimp genome is the most useful key to understanding human biology and evolution, next to the human genome itself. The breakthrough will aid scientists in their mission to learn what sets us apart from other animals.

By comparing human and chimpanzee genomes, the researchers have identified several sequences of genetic code that differ between human and chimp. These sequences may hold the most promise for determining what creates human-specific traits such as speech.

            cont. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

Ha, you don’t want me to insult your gurus do you?

😁

  Are YOU insulting  the National Geographic?  
Can you produce ANY source more reliable than the National Geographic ?

[friend]

May 9, 2018 14:33:18 GMT -5 rational said:

May 9, 2018 12:32:38 GMT -5 friend said:

As in court, the judge rules in favor of “beyond reasonable doubt” , and you haven’t provided
any evidence to support that God didn’t create 
Creation . 

Your babbling about darwinianism is based
on myths that go far far past what reason allows
humanity to consider.  (?darwinianism takes 
an enormous amount of unreasonable assumptions)

And I have no evidence that you were not created by a neutered unicorn.

But concerning the original offer to enter into a discussion - I guess that isn't going to work out.

Your unreasonable hypothesises are extraordinary!
Good luck in a real biology 101 class! 🤯Boom!

[friend]

May 9, 2018 14:35:21 GMT -5 dmmichgood said:

May 9, 2018 12:35:34 GMT -5 friend said:

Ha, you don’t want me to insult your gurus do you?

😁

  Are YOU insulting  the National Geographic?  
Can you produce ANY source more reliable than the National Geographic ?

National Geography hires your uninitiated gurus to
brainwash readers about how little they know👀

Oh well, I have read some of the articles published
In NG, and find some of the research they publish
makes good kindling , but otherwise it’s useless!


🤷‍♂️

[dmmichgood]

May 9, 2018 12:32:38 GMT -5 friend said:

May 9, 2018 8:03:06 GMT -5 rational said:

I will try one more time.
Provide an example of a theory that you feel is based on a lie with some verifiable (Hint - that means published and peer reviewed) and we can go from there. It would help if the person responsible for the evidence had some training in the field or at least a related field.

I am sure there are others reading here that would help as well. But if you veer off the topic and begin to babble on with unsupported tales and YouTube examples you are on your own.

As in court, the judge rules in favor of “beyond reasonable doubt” , and you haven’t provided  any evidence to support that God didn’t  create 
Creation . 

Your babbling about darwinianism is based n myths that go far far past what reason allows humanity to consider.  (?darwinianism takes 
an enormous amount of unreasonable assumptions)

We aren't talking about a court room  "evidence " as in  someone's guilt for a "action"  he/she  may have done.

We are talking about "evidence" needed when someone makes a statement that something    exists.

In that case  "the burden of proof"  falls on the person making the assertion that something   does actually "exists."

For  instance; -I could insist that there is a small   elf that lives under my bed and only comes out at night when no one else is  around but me. 

Now the "burden of proof" is on MY shoulders to prove that that elf actually does exist.

I have no right to  insist that it is YOUR duty or responsibility to prove that is DOESN'T exist.

And if you can't prove that what I claim doesn't exist,  -then I insist that you have to concede that I am right.

If that were true, -think of all the things in the world that people insist that they have seen and are sure that those things exist!
And just because we can't prove they don't exist,  we have to concede that they therefore DO exist.

(That would include Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny,  also ghosts, aliens, ........)

PS: 

If you continue  to produce  posts which  just  babble on and  never give any  proof  for a sound debate,  then I will let you just talk to yourself.

[friend]

May 9, 2018 15:33:19 GMT -5 dmmichgood said:

May 9, 2018 12:32:38 GMT -5 friend said:

As in court, the judge rules in favor of “beyond reasonable doubt” , and you haven’t provided  any evidence to support that God didn’t  create 
Creation . 

Your babbling about darwinianism is based n myths that go far far past what reason allows humanity to consider.  (?darwinianism takes 
an enormous amount of unreasonable assumptions)

We aren't talking about a court room  "evidence " as in  someone's guilt for a "action"  he/she  may have done.

We are talking about "evidence" needed when someone makes a statement that something    exists.

In that case  "the burden of proof"  falls on the person making the assertion that something   does actually "exists."

For  instance; -I could insist that there is a small   elf that lives under my bed and only comes out at night when no one else is  around but me. 

Now the "burden of proof" is on MY shoulders to prove that that elf actually does exist.

I have no right to  insist that it is YOUR duty or responsibility to prove that is DOESN'T exist.

And if you can't prove that what I claim doesn't exist,  -then I insist that you have to concede that I am right.

If that were true, -think of all the things in the world that people insist that they have seen and are sure that those things exist!
And just because we can't prove they don't exist,  we have to concede that they therefore DO exist.

(That would include Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny,  also ghosts, aliens, ........)

PS: 

If you continue  to produce  posts which  just  babble on and  never give any  proof  for a sound debate,  then I will let you just talk to yourself.

if you wish to believe your creator is “evilution” , you need
to give a reasonable hypothesis for such a claim

Otherwise it’s just a bunch of brabbling! 🤥

🤧👀wwwwww!

[Roselyn T]

We all know who is babbling ! So far you have not answered any questions or given any evidence to support you "babbling" friend!

[Roselyn T]

May 8, 2018 2:34:59 GMT -5 dmmichgood said:

May 8, 2018 1:18:49 GMT -5 friend said:

thinking this is self evident, nevertheless, as you
Know! antibiotics can not eliminate all strains of bacteria, some do survive
(thus the said antibiotic is ineffective. (Not always, but
it is possible to)

Why don't you just answer  rational's question?   "explain the way antibiotics work outside of a living body and without an immune system?

Why don't you just answer peoples questions instead of just stringing another bunch of words together that make no sense?

That is no way to "debate" anything!

That is  why I seldom answer you.

[Roselyn T]

May 8, 2018 15:26:39 GMT -5 rational said:

May 8, 2018 1:18:49 GMT -5 friend said:

thinking this is self evident, nevertheless, as you
Know! antibiotics can not eliminate all strains of bacteria, some do survive
(thus the said antibiotic is ineffective. (Not always, but
it is possible to)

Answer the question of how antibiotics work in the absence of an immune system.

[friend]

May 9, 2018 18:10:44 GMT -5 Roselyn T said:

May 8, 2018 15:26:39 GMT -5 rational said:

Answer the question of how antibiotics work in the absence of an immune system.

With out an immune system, it seems that the work
involved to fight off every virus , bacteria, or other
foreign objects would need to include a miraculous
Intervention.

Most life have some hereditary form of defense
against such invasions.
What we are able to do to support the immune system
Is what I consider to be a reasonable effort, unless
Some where there is a victim that doesn’t have
an immune system to work with.


I default on this difficult question 🤷‍♂️

Sorry I couldn’t help you😰

[dmmichgood]

May 9, 2018 23:35:40 GMT -5 friend said:

May 9, 2018 18:10:44 GMT -5 Roselyn T said:

With out an immune system, it seems that the work
involved to fight off every virus , bacteria, or other
foreign objects would need to include a miraculous
Intervention.

Most life have some hereditary form of defense
against such invasions.
What we are able to do to support the immune system
Is what I consider to be a reasonable effort, unless
Some where there is a victim that doesn’t have
an immune system to work with.


I default on this difficult question 🤷‍♂️

Sorry I couldn’t help you😰

The reason that you can't answer the question is that you have forgotten your original statement:  Here it is:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Ok, briefly, bacteria have many expressed types that during an infection/ are often successfully
fought off by a healthy immune system...

in in case of treating with a specific antibiotic, our
body recognizes the invading bacteria, and it
is helped overcome by the medical supplement
that treats the targeted bacteria, the minority
bacteria survive even though they are no longer
a threat to our immune system.

If these ”minor strains” are stirred up to attack
again, they are not affected by the previous
treatment of antibiotics, because they are a
different type....

They did not “evolve” , they came from the same
bacterial infection ... they were just hibernated by
nature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here was  Rational's question to you:

        "How do you explain the way antibiotics work outside of a living body and without an immune system?"

You are unable to answer the question because     all your talk about how the antibiotics work and the immune system was a jumbled bunch of words without any meaning.

Antibiotics don't NEED the immune system in order to work! 

Antibiotics  will kill the bacteria in petri dishes!  In fact that is the way that they were first discovered.

"1928 that the very first antibiotic was discovered -- accidentally, at that -- when researcher Alexander Fleming came back to work
after a weekend away from his lab and found a certain type of mold, Penicillium notatum, had halted the growth of Staphylococcus (staph -- a bacteria that can cause skin infections, pneumonia and some food-borne illness, among other infections) in his petri dishes. And not only did it kill Staphylococcus, it also worked when he tried it against other bacteria, including Streptococcus, Meningococcus and Diphtheria bacillus.

[curlywurlysammagee]

May 9, 2018 18:09:13 GMT -5 Roselyn T said:

We all know who is babbling ! So far you have not answered any questions or given any evidence to support you "babbling" friend!

He/she sounds like some workers I know. All gas and no substance.

[friend]

May 10, 2018 0:11:42 GMT -5 dmmichgood said:

May 9, 2018 23:35:40 GMT -5 friend said:

With out an immune system, it seems that the work
involved to fight off every virus , bacteria, or other
foreign objects would need to include a miraculous
Intervention.

Most life have some hereditary form of defense
against such invasions.
What we are able to do to support the immune system
Is what I consider to be a reasonable effort, unless
Some where there is a victim that doesn’t have
an immune system to work with.


I default on this difficult question 🤷‍♂️

Sorry I couldn’t help you😰

The reason that you can't answer the question is that you have forgotten your original statement:  Here it is:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Ok, briefly, bacteria have many expressed types that during an infection/ are often successfully
fought off by a healthy immune system...

in in case of treating with a specific antibiotic, our
body recognizes the invading bacteria, and it
is helped overcome by the medical supplement
that treats the targeted bacteria, the minority
bacteria survive even though they are no longer
a threat to our immune system.

If these ”minor strains” are stirred up to attack
again, they are not affected by the previous
treatment of antibiotics, because they are a
different type....

They did not “evolve” , they came from the same
bacterial infection ... they were just hibernated by
nature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here was  Rational's question to you:

        "How do you explain the way antibiotics work outside of a living body and without an immune system?"

You are unable to answer the question because     all your talk about how the antibiotics work and the immune system was a jumbled bunch of words without any meaning.

Antibiotics don't NEED the immune system in order to work! 

Antibiotics  will kill the bacteria in petri dishes!  In fact that is the way that they were first discovered.

"1928 that the very first antibiotic was discovered -- accidentally, at that -- when researcher Alexander Fleming came back to work
after a weekend away from his lab and found a certain type of mold, Penicillium notatum, had halted the growth of Staphylococcus (staph -- a bacteria that can cause skin infections, pneumonia and some food-borne illness, among other infections) in his petri dishes. And not only did it kill Staphylococcus, it also worked when he tried it against other bacteria, including Streptococcus, Meningococcus and Diphtheria bacillus.

I am only interested in how there are many bacteria’s
that NEED to survive , even as you ingest
Antibiotics
🤧

[friend]

Whatever!

I am not in favor of use human guinia pigs in experiments. 🙂

But that doesn’t stop them!! 🤯

[friend]

Not sure. What the point of the question was?

Killing bacteria in a lab , is far safer than ingesting it (drug)

Many human side effects can cause serious problems
even fatel in extreme cases

[curlywurlysammagee]

I have just been out to a friends. There was an elderly Jewish woman there who could not tell me how two penguins, a male and a female got from the Antarctic or NZ or the southern coast of Australia or South America or South Africa to the middle east to board Noah" ark. They did this and the return journey without leaving any fossil trace whatsoever. The same can be said for the Polar Bear and the wolverine. The Great White shark and the Boa.
I wonder at why people can be so set on their beliefs and refuse to believe what science tells them. Yet when faced with an illness they are off to the doctors in a flash to be prescribed the latest in medicine, courtesy of science.