Scientists Who Believe in a Creator, and Why.

[rational experiences]

Science egotism human men lies.

O natural is first.

Reasoning a human exists says I am a human and first. Earth my planet supporting life with god and first. Both of us first together but separate.

Information he uses says otherwise.

O earth and it's heavens two bodies together and separate is first.

Human with God is first in three terms of earth it's heavens human man first status all bodies.

Consciousness human then debates self is the creator. As a human theist scientist.

So the first two humans by his theory baby man only living by sex in his life body envisions them first. As alive yet the position natural is only his own.

Maybe millions of years ago the microbe bacterias that ate their corpses as their first human death was not put in the vision thesis.

His own two parents Still live in real science and exist today.

He seems awAre of that fact.

Living inside the ground water mass.

Consciousness informed the whole time of correct advice ignored by the theist.

He therefore by invention in fake thesis only theiries origin dead parents tries to remanifest them. Claiming inventive thesis to human then past human...human baby. His own self.

Notice human is told the whole time.

Based on want science wanting the coldest heavens gases immaculate voided that were sucked out one way only.

Machine wants those gases. Stone machine string does not own them.

Position body machine metal. Big hole to form a cup to make immaculate gas come to ground to fill up machine cup hole. By thesis I want. Half machine mass removed in other words..

His thesis I want coldest and beginning. For science invention only.

Ground mass UFO metal pressure in space takes ground water microbe bacterias in water evaporation. Life that already eaten the bodies of origin two human parents.

Angel of God in man's image already in cloud. Our human protection. Seen from ground a huge manlike body just as a cloud leaving.

Man owns sperm healthy life DNA. Man's penis DNA sperm gets removed. Irradiated by causes. Mind is lost in same process.

Conscious human advice compares man penis sperm to strands filaments of cloud destruction angel hair effect. Cloud fall.

Burnt clouds by UFO effect. Metals cooled by ground water using our oxygen microbes leaving passed through burning light again. Burns clouds. Clouds natural inside state immaculate coldest.

Voiding pressure cloud rival angel anti of gods presence image gets sucked out of presence. Formed by gods gases in heavens pressures.

Burnt cooled pressured changes in space how form's of large body cloud image changes into.presence into the alien.

Man in science the inventor creator of holy Satan angel destroyed took Satan's form to become alien cloud pressured image. Via UFO metal pressures in space voiding.

Theist always lies using past envisioned states that natural placement as one presence never owned. Theism use pretend also. Ignored pre taught advice.

First two human parents as number one in natural life still alive. Natural baby man's parents are not original first two parents. Mind lies.

Beyond them is a human baby. How he pretends alien formed as science conditions was also the alien first baby. Lying all the time. In his own human man baby adult presence.

Then tried to convince humans aliens were our parents and aliens were human babies.

Sperm and ovary form a human baby.

Satanisms.

Alien mass like cloud strands as larger bodies then fall out of the sky in cloud destruction. Cause is from earths string released stone radiation first.

Stone not being radiation is stone only. Why one is in its named status.

Space pressure changed radiation so it no longer is earth owned.

Is not of earths God actually.

Gases in space released from stones pressure the reason why an alien is conjured. Earths stone gases formed cloud mass. Out of space pressure cooling radiation did not own cloud formation.

Satan's angels were formed in the image of man destroyed. Water microbes mass given to new cloud formation because of man scientist. Earth losing angel protection.

Half man body DNA gone theories he conceived the alien in thesis I am the creator self. As a man. As a scientist. Man sex falsely with machine produces alien form. All in his head.

Why he designed built robot machines to have sex. Reason mind in science possession wanders away from ownership in theisms.

Effect is witnessed in human conscious beliefs...caused by mens science.

Advised consciously lies in reality.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You are forgetting that fossilization only occurred under the certain circumstances, but it have been discovered that more fossils are found among marine life than those occur on land.

And marine life during the Cambrian period are more extensive than those of the Precambrian eras and periods, because the trilobites are essentially arthropods, with hard exoskeleton shells instead of bones, which are good to start fossilized crystallization when they are around sediments (this starting process of fossilization is known as “permineralization”, look it up).

Actually, multicellular began before the Cambrian period, in the the very late Precambrian period called Ediacaran period.

If you recall what both @Polymath257 and @TagliatelliMonster said, that in stable environment, evolution Selection slow down, while disruptive changes in the environments will cause accelerated diversification.

Well, that what happened between the Ediacaran period and Cambrian period - there was a period of glaciation - called Baykonur glaciation - which triggered the Cambrian radiation of newer species.

TagliatelleMonster & Polymath257 were right, the fossil records in the Cambrian Explosion were evidence for Evolution, particularly for Natural Selection.

You have to remember that Charles Darwin was only a pioneer of evolutionary biology, and just getting started, so he didn’t quite understand the Cambrian Explosion, but over decades and century that follow, there are more paleontologists with better investigative tools and techniques to test the theory about Cambrian Explosion.

The only rubbish I see are creationists burying their heads (including your own) in the sand on subject that you brought up yourself.

Lol. I will continue to ‘bring it up’. Study the evidence for yourself, and then we can discuss it reasonably, w/o the Ad Homs thrown around.

Are you capable? The animosity in your posts, indicates otherwise.

 

[rational experiences]

The science argument origin was never in creation.

Humans am an observer of created creation had to come from an origin to understand change.

Why no man is God was taught. God as the concept exists created.

Science says it is looking for the creator...not the created.

It says in created presence the presence is too precise to not have arrived from a superior origin of unknoweable status.

Science human egotism says but I want to know it. See it. Understand it.

Spiritual acceptance....don't have it can't have it.

Egotism but I want it.

So you ask why and what for.

In reality so I can force it to change myself in the sciences by possessing it.

Other minds claim...no I just want to know.

As we are all equal humans you get to choose.

I chose spirituality not destruction thesis. Science.

I said in my own mind where we all make status first .....okay if you are real prove it.

Knowing I am not applying the sciences.

Science then says you are wrong.

I ask why.

Because I want to know by science mind thinking conditions.

What you say is unacceptable to my human ego. Know it all self.

Who by the way destroys by experiments to learn and know.

So the eternal proved to me it existed. That humans came from it at a held caused.

Highest pressure o planet with a heavens water mass pushed to ground placement. Densest position highest space filler.

Stating how why the body spirit emerged into water oxygen pre existing and took it on bodily and converted spiritually into bio chemicals.

Didn't seem too far fetched to me.

Seeing science kept preaching space owning burnt eternal was a womb.

In my thinking womb means a body held inside another body.

So I saw a slight glimpse before the eternal became a human in between the human man being human to our human mother entering after him.

Learning about states and why life returned after proven totally destroyed. Human life recorded. Heavens doing recording.

The eternal being the creator then made sense to why a father native Indian American was heard talking in my mind body attacked.

Seeing America is applying intensive feedback atmospheric experiments. Looking for it.

So once and for all brother...it is not in creation scientists. The creator form.

 

[Polymath257]

Human brains are not gorilla brains. Or fish brains, they are far different from each other.

Actually, human and gorilla brains are very similar except for size. The one big difference is in Broca's area: for speech.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Human brains are not gorilla brains. Or fish brains, they are far different from each other.

Again, you think you have a point with these statements, but do you? Do you really?
I'm not seeing it. Do you imagine that this statement is somehow a problem for evolution or something?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Lol. I will continue to ‘bring it up’. Study the evidence for yourself, and then we can discuss it reasonably, w/o the Ad Homs thrown around.

Ow my..................

YOU are going to tell him to "study up"? Really????

You completely ignored everything I told you where I exposed, and corrected, every single mistake you made.
I showed you how your statement of "they remain bacteria" was ignorant.
I explained how your understanding of the cambrian explosion was ignorant.
I explained how punctuated equilibrium actually works.
I explained how selection pressures work and what it means when they changed.

You ignored it all.
You replied to NOTHING.

And here you are, flat out telling us that you will simply continue to repeat the same claims, regardless of how wrong they are.

You are not even trying to get it right.

It makes sense though, as truth is not what you care about. Upholding your a priori religious beliefs is what you care about. Truth does not matter to you.

If it did, you would at least try to address the points I raised.
But you will not, will you?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Ow my..................

YOU are going to tell him to "study up"? Really????

You completely ignored everything I told you where I exposed, and corrected, every single mistake you made.
I showed you how your statement of "they remain bacteria" was ignorant.
I explained how your understanding of the cambrian explosion was ignorant.
I explained how punctuated equilibrium actually works.
I explained how selection pressures work and what it means when they changed.

You ignored it all.
You replied to NOTHING.

And here you are, flat out telling us that you will simply continue to repeat the same claims, regardless of how wrong they are.

You are not even trying to get it right.

It makes sense though, as truth is not what you care about. Upholding your a priori religious beliefs is what you care about. Truth does not matter to you.

If it did, you would at least try to address the points I raised.
But you will not, will you?

You corrected me? You’ve offered nothing substantial in your rebuttals, only conjecture and biased explanations!

But I’m the one with the problem. That’s rich!

Truth is what it’s all about! Naturalism ain’t got it. Since that is your god, you’ll always lack conclusive answers. But that’s your biased choice.

Just some questions….

You believe in LUCA, right? (You sorta have to, with your belief set being what it is, ie., complete trust in naturalistic processes.)
You went on a rant w/ me a few weeks back, saying that humans are apes, we’re mammals, we’re fish, we’re chordates, we’re eukaryotes … why stop there? We must be bacteria, right? So when & how did eukaryotes evolve from prokaryotic cells?

And what selective pressures would effect change from asexual reproduction to the much more energy-consuming sexual reproduction? Which also results in fewer offspring? Why would NS choose such change? And How?

No, these phenotypes require engineering.

Although you’ll never come to that conclusion. Maybe one day.

Have a good one.

 

[rational experiences]

If science just humans say to science just humans I am not science then you would preach no man is God.

Reason you compare reasoning of a God to circumstances not of your human control.

To say selective cause.

Mr know it all rich man who controls science only by all past human choices the reasoning he is rich...

Humans life equal family abused tormented tortured.

So the rich man no king as the status reality was the rich man wearing gods jewels on head. Rich man once was king.. yet no rich human was the spiritual king.

The poor man was. Yet no poor man is real as God existed mutually equal for all kinds.

Ignored as self human advice.

So the poor human thin life by being starved by fake rich man claiming I own everything and thin King got us irradiated brain prickled bodily sacrificed by his rich evil brother using gods power in the anti state.

Rich liars today pays science to lie as he controls employment.

Humans knowing our demise says the rich man control will destroy us all. As his choices make and invent purpose to be richer is his only real motivation.

The cost he agrees was human spiritual healthy life mind and body.

So science pushes the God reasoning itself selective causes is change that was not human owned nor is it human controlled.

As science was the preacher of God conditions not of his control as ownership in science or science purpose. Being AI artificial causes itself.

As science takes natural evolution and destroys it.

Science hence says gods law is natural so it is evolution. Preaches evolution is holy.

Life heals only in natural causes not controlled. God is hence mysterious by a human summation.

Alienists in technology don't abide evolution as a God status. Claim it is controlled by destruction. Machine metals.

Alien today is a historic cooled evolved alien. Science says God status evolved the alien it was going away.

Science has already removed the God law evolution as the alien became eviler.

How artificial causes only produces evil.

Reason says alienists want it to be removed by machine control from holy womb mother protection voiding and make it come back to ground as a machine portion put back.

As his new thesis using ion metal was to remove part of his machine mass in reaction so of course he knew he had to control the other half being put back.

Didn't want by thesis his machine to overheat melt and blow up.

How holy mothers protection of her earth children gets science removed and then men who said we were God get irradiated with the real gods stone radiation returned.

Why our science brother was in fact always the preacher for holy God and his brother occultist was against God.

As science once only owned and used God earth status. One and first self human first to our owned origin a human and planet earth first our God.

Number one position stated to be only where we lived and nowhere else.

Human law said so as a world United man agreement.

Origin never imposed beginning it was the state of what existed owing self body origin. Science law. Human stated supported by human law.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You corrected me?

Yep.

In response to your PRATT statements like "but they remain bacteria!", I explained to you how in evolution species never outgrow their ancestry and how evolution would be falsified if species A would produce or evolve in "not-A".

In response to your PRATT claims saying evolution can't account for "rapid" radiations, I explained to you how punctuated equilibrium works; how evolution speeds up and slows down as species move in and out of their local optimum as environmental parameters change.

And so on.

And in response to all these points, you were simply silent. You addressed none of them and ignored them all, only to repeat the same mistakes later on.

You’ve offered nothing substantial in your rebuttals, only conjecture and biased explanations!

If that is how you wish to refer to established science, be my guest. But this is just more denial on your part.

But I’m the one with the problem. That’s rich!

You are the one with the problem because you are the one who's unwilling to correct your mistakes. You are arguing a strawman version of the theory and you will simply not allow being corrected.

You should ask yourself why you insist on being wrong about the theory you are so hellbend on arguing against...

Truth is what it’s all about! Naturalism ain’t got it. Since that is your god, you’ll always lack conclusive answers. But that’s your biased choice.

You make no sense.
I go by the evidence. You're the one who's pre-occupied with gods and who's hellbend on including them in whatever you need to to uphold your a priori beliefs.

Do you also complain about "naturalism" when a physicists doesn't include a god variable in E = mc²? Or when a geologist doesn't include a god variable in plate tectonics? Or when a microbiologist doesn't include a god variable in germ theory?

I'll be happy to include a god variable in whatever, the second you can give us a proper reason to do so.
Until then, I see about as much reason to include gods in evolution theory as I (and you also) see reasons to include undetectable graviton pixies in theory of relativity.

You believe in LUCA, right? (You sorta have to, with your belief set being what it is, ie., complete trust in naturalistic processes.)

LUCA is a genetic fact and doesn't require any "belief".

You went on a rant w/ me a few weeks back

If you wish to call that a "rant", be my guest. But it only further exposes your a priori bias against anything that doesn't fit your a priori religious beliefs.

, saying that humans are apes, we’re mammals, we’re fish, we’re chordates, we’re eukaryotes … why stop there? We must be bacteria, right? So when & how did eukaryotes evolve from prokaryotic cells?

And what selective pressures would effect change from asexual reproduction to the much more energy-consuming sexual reproduction? Which also results in fewer offspring? Why would NS choose such change? And How?

Lots of reason, obviously. There's no one single reason that made this happen, nor is it the result of one single mutation or whatever. Neither did it occur over a single generation.
These questions once again expose just how ignorant you are on the process. You seem to think that these questions can be answered in a few sentences in a single forum post. In reality, entire books can be, and are, written about the evolution of sexual reproduction.

In your ignorance though, you do touch on an interesting subject without even realizing it.
Your question assumes that genders / sexual reproduction evolved and then asks the question "how did it occur".

That is indeed how it is. That species share ancestry is a given. It is a genetic fact. We've sequenced more then enough full genomes to be able to conclude that.
So yes, it is pretty much a fact that species evolved. The question "how/why" is answered in evolution theory.

So even if you manage to disproved evolution theory tomorrow - the facts remain. Species STILL factually share ancestry. The theory of descend with modification followed by selection (in a nutshell) would be shown wrong. But evolution would still happen. Mutation would still happen. Speciation would still occur. The collective of DNA would still show that species share ancestry.

No, these phenotypes require engineering.

Why? Because you say so?

Although you’ll never come to that conclusion.

Why would I come to such a conclusion when there is zero evidence to support such a conclusion?

Maybe one day.

Maybe. If it happens, it will be the day that someone can support such a conclusion with evidence.
Until then, I'll shelve it next to undetectable graviton pixies.

Have a good one.

Thanks. As for you, try to learn something today.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You should ask yourself why you insist on being wrong about the theory you are so hellbend on arguing against...

So, what about evolution am I wrong about?

Are you aware of the extent of evolution that I accept? It certainly isn’t narrow!

And what you omitted, in replying to my post, speaks volumes!

And your statement,
“LUCA is a genetic fact!”!

The “fact” is, that all living things have DNA and similar genes. To say they ‘share’ them because they all evolved from LUCA (which you would claim/believe to probably be prokaryotic Cyanobacteria), is only wishful thinking.

Provide evidence that prokaryotic cells can evolve into eukaryotic cells — just show how a living prokaryote can arise through natural processes — and how & why asexual reproduction in some organisms evolved into the more-energy-consuming-and-less-return processes of male/female mating, and I’ll change my understanding even more.

But you “believe” these events happened.
To not call them a belief set, borders on farcical.

I’m always learning something; are you?

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually, human and gorilla brains are very similar except for size. The one big difference is in Broca's area: for speech.

Ummm (and it's a big ummm), human brains are rather more capable (and I know I have to be specific, because I guess it's hard for some people to understand...) in reading, writing, rithmetic and 'science' than I would say, gorillas and ants. Reading music -- making clothing -- writing books (I just thought I'd add those things to the difference of brains).

 

[YoursTrue]

Yep.

In response to your PRATT statements like "but they remain bacteria!", I explained to you how in evolution species never outgrow their ancestry and how evolution would be falsified if species A would produce or evolve in "not-A".

In response to your PRATT claims saying evolution can't account for "rapid" radiations, I explained to you how punctuated equilibrium works; how evolution speeds up and slows down as species move in and out of their local optimum as environmental parameters change.

And so on.

And in response to all these points, you were simply silent. You addressed none of them and ignored them all, only to repeat the same mistakes later on.



If that is how you wish to refer to established science, be my guest. But this is just more denial on your part.



You are the one with the problem because you are the one who's unwilling to correct your mistakes. You are arguing a strawman version of the theory and you will simply not allow being corrected.

You should ask yourself why you insist on being wrong about the theory you are so hellbend on arguing against...



You make no sense.
I go by the evidence. You're the one who's pre-occupied with gods and who's hellbend on including them in whatever you need to to uphold your a priori beliefs.

Do you also complain about "naturalism" when a physicists doesn't include a god variable in E = mc²? Or when a geologist doesn't include a god variable in plate tectonics? Or when a microbiologist doesn't include a god variable in germ theory?

I'll be happy to include a god variable in whatever, the second you can give us a proper reason to do so.
Until then, I see about as much reason to include gods in evolution theory as I (and you also) see reasons to include undetectable graviton pixies in theory of relativity.



LUCA is a genetic fact and doesn't require any "belief".



If you wish to call that a "rant", be my guest. But it only further exposes your a priori bias against anything that doesn't fit your a priori religious beliefs.




View attachment 54193





Lots of reason, obviously. There's no one single reason that made this happen, nor is it the result of one single mutation or whatever. Neither did it occur over a single generation.
These questions once again expose just how ignorant you are on the process. You seem to think that these questions can be answered in a few sentences in a single forum post. In reality, entire books can be, and are, written about the evolution of sexual reproduction.

In your ignorance though, you do touch on an interesting subject without even realizing it.
Your question assumes that genders / sexual reproduction evolved and then asks the question "how did it occur".

That is indeed how it is. That species share ancestry is a given. It is a genetic fact. We've sequenced more then enough full genomes to be able to conclude that.
So yes, it is pretty much a fact that species evolved. The question "how/why" is answered in evolution theory.

So even if you manage to disproved evolution theory tomorrow - the facts remain. Species STILL factually share ancestry. The theory of descend with modification followed by selection (in a nutshell) would be shown wrong. But evolution would still happen. Mutation would still happen. Speciation would still occur. The collective of DNA would still show that species share ancestry.



Why? Because you say so?



Why would I come to such a conclusion when there is zero evidence to support such a conclusion?



Maybe. If it happens, it will be the day that someone can support such a conclusion with evidence.
Until then, I'll shelve it next to undetectable graviton pixies.



Thanks. As for you, try to learn something today.

In reference to your point about bacteria (and evolution), here's what wikipedia says about this, in part:
"Bacteria reproduce through binary fission, though they can still share genetic information between individuals either by transduction, transformation, or conjugation. Bacteria evolve in a similar process to other organisms."
According to the theory, do they still stay bacteria? or did they always stay bacteria?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yep.

In response to your PRATT statements like "but they remain bacteria!", I explained to you how in evolution species never outgrow their ancestry and how evolution would be falsified if species A would produce or evolve in "not-A".

In response to your PRATT claims saying evolution can't account for "rapid" radiations, I explained to you how punctuated equilibrium works; how evolution speeds up and slows down as species move in and out of their local optimum as environmental parameters change.

And so on.

And in response to all these points, you were simply silent. You addressed none of them and ignored them all, only to repeat the same mistakes later on.



If that is how you wish to refer to established science, be my guest. But this is just more denial on your part.



You are the one with the problem because you are the one who's unwilling to correct your mistakes. You are arguing a strawman version of the theory and you will simply not allow being corrected.

You should ask yourself why you insist on being wrong about the theory you are so hellbend on arguing against...



You make no sense.
I go by the evidence. You're the one who's pre-occupied with gods and who's hellbend on including them in whatever you need to to uphold your a priori beliefs.

Do you also complain about "naturalism" when a physicists doesn't include a god variable in E = mc²? Or when a geologist doesn't include a god variable in plate tectonics? Or when a microbiologist doesn't include a god variable in germ theory?

I'll be happy to include a god variable in whatever, the second you can give us a proper reason to do so.
Until then, I see about as much reason to include gods in evolution theory as I (and you also) see reasons to include undetectable graviton pixies in theory of relativity.



LUCA is a genetic fact and doesn't require any "belief".



If you wish to call that a "rant", be my guest. But it only further exposes your a priori bias against anything that doesn't fit your a priori religious beliefs.




View attachment 54193





Lots of reason, obviously. There's no one single reason that made this happen, nor is it the result of one single mutation or whatever. Neither did it occur over a single generation.
These questions once again expose just how ignorant you are on the process. You seem to think that these questions can be answered in a few sentences in a single forum post. In reality, entire books can be, and are, written about the evolution of sexual reproduction.

In your ignorance though, you do touch on an interesting subject without even realizing it.
Your question assumes that genders / sexual reproduction evolved and then asks the question "how did it occur".

That is indeed how it is. That species share ancestry is a given. It is a genetic fact. We've sequenced more then enough full genomes to be able to conclude that.
So yes, it is pretty much a fact that species evolved. The question "how/why" is answered in evolution theory.

So even if you manage to disproved evolution theory tomorrow - the facts remain. Species STILL factually share ancestry. The theory of descend with modification followed by selection (in a nutshell) would be shown wrong. But evolution would still happen. Mutation would still happen. Speciation would still occur. The collective of DNA would still show that species share ancestry.



Why? Because you say so?



Why would I come to such a conclusion when there is zero evidence to support such a conclusion?



Maybe. If it happens, it will be the day that someone can support such a conclusion with evidence.
Until then, I'll shelve it next to undetectable graviton pixies.



Thanks. As for you, try to learn something today.

Well, ants and gorillas, despite brain sizes, still apparently do not feel the need for clothing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, what about evolution am I wrong about?

It's explained in the posts you are replying to. To be more specific, the parts you never quote or respond to.

Are you aware of the extent of evolution that I accept?

I'm aware that you don't know what punctuated equilibrium is about or how it works, which is why I had to explain it to you (and which you haven't responded to).

I'm aware that you make statements like "but they are still bacteria!" and believe that that is somehow a problem for evolution. This one is extra bad, since it implies that it would have to become "non-bacteria" for you to think it supports evolution. While in reality, evolution theory would be falsified. This is how backwards your "understanding" of it is.

It certainly isn’t narrow!

The evidence says otherwise. And you know me... I like evidence.

And what you omitted, in replying to my post, speaks volumes!

Says the guy who always only quotes the least relevant sentence of posts filled with relevant points.
This is an extreme case of projection.

And your statement,
“LUCA is a genetic fact!”!

Yes.

The “fact” is, that all living things have DNA and similar genes.

Yes. And another fact is that we can use those similarities to construct family tries and figure out levels of relatedness between samples.

This is how we can know that your brother is your actual brother and not your cousin.
That species share ancestry is as much a fact as when DNA comparisons are used to determine if your cousin is your actual cousin.

To say they ‘share’ them because they all evolved from LUCA (which you would claim/believe to probably be prokaryotic Cyanobacteria), is only wishful thinking.

No, it's how DNA works. It mutates in every individual and they pass it on to offspring in that mutated form, where it mutates further. This creates a traceable hierarchical construct. A family tree.

To find out what the tree is, all you need to do is compare the DNA and map out the matches and misses.
When you plot out that data on a graph, you get your family tree.

There is no bias in this process. If species don't share ancestry, it will end up being a chaotic mess with lines all over the place and things that don't make any sense in evolutionary context.
If species DO share ancestry, this will come out in a rather sensible and cleanly grouped hierarchical tree. A family tree.

Here's one that's been generated by a software that analyses fully sequenced genomes.
The software counts the hits and maps them out. That's all it does.

All this together, makes common ancestry of species nothing short of fact.
As factual as when a DNA test says that your brother is your actual brother and not your cousin.


So now that you know this, you can go on ignoring it just like you did with the other explanations I gave you. Perhaps just quote this sentence, as it's the least relevant.

Provide evidence that prokaryotic cells can evolve into eukaryotic cells

From prokaryotes to eukaryotes (berkeley.edu)

— just show how a living prokaryote can arise through natural processes —

Abiogenesis <> Evolution.

I'm 110% sure people have already told you this. You ignored them too?

and how & why asexual reproduction in some organisms evolved into the more-energy-consuming-and-less-return processes of male/female mating, and I’ll change my understanding even more.

Maybe you should start with the basics first, but...
Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia

But you “believe” these events happened.

In the same way that I "believe" that a fire raged here:

To not call them a belief set, borders on farcical.

Sure, but the important part of a belief, is what it is based on - how it is justified.
This is not the same kind of "belief" as the creationist belief that some god magicked it all into existence.

My beliefs are justified by evidence.
Your beliefs are motivated by "faith" instead.

Is there anything that you couldn't believe on "faith"?
Like the burned down house above. You could believe on "faith" that god created it that way, could you not?

I’m always learning something

The evidence says otherwise.

; are you?

Yes. Right now, I'm learning about intellectual dishonesty motivated by dogmatic creationist beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ummm (and it's a big ummm), human brains are rather more capable (and I know I have to be specific, because I guess it's hard for some people to understand...) in reading, writing, rithmetic and 'science' than I would say, gorillas and ants. Reading music -- making clothing -- writing books (I just thought I'd add those things to the difference of brains).

These things might sound impressive to you, but the fact is that the actual difference between building a space shuttle and fabricating a termite catching stick, isn't as big as it would appear to be.

Both require the mental processes for planning and tool making.
A space shuttle merely requires those processes to be slightly more efficient / advanced / sophisticated / whatever-you-wish-to-call-it.

On the flip side, there's also things that a chimp brain can do that humans could only dream off.

The fact is that the difference between primate brains isn't as big as human's narcistic nature would care to admit.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In reference to your point about bacteria (and evolution), here's what wikipedia says about this, in part:
"Bacteria reproduce through binary fission, though they can still share genetic information between individuals either by transduction, transformation, or conjugation. Bacteria evolve in a similar process to other organisms."
According to the theory, do they still stay bacteria? or did they always stay bacteria?

Why didn't you link the wikipedia article?
I don't understand your question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, ants and gorillas, despite brain sizes, still apparently do not feel the need for clothing.

So?

 

[Polymath257]

Ummm (and it's a big ummm), human brains are rather more capable (and I know I have to be specific, because I guess it's hard for some people to understand...) in reading, writing, rithmetic and 'science' than I would say, gorillas and ants. Reading music -- making clothing -- writing books (I just thought I'd add those things to the difference of brains).

Yes, there is language ability that far exceeds that of other apes. And we are good at abstract thoughts (we don't know how good chimps are at that, though).

But remember that writing, arithmetic, and science are *very* recent things. MOST of the time there have been humans, we have had none of those (we can't tell about music). So the *biological* differences amount to language.

And chimps, for example, have the language abilities of a two or three year old human, so even that isn't as far out as you might think.

As for mathematics, again, that is very recent. But chimps are *better* than humans at many memory and counting tests.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, ants and gorillas, despite brain sizes, still apparently do not feel the need for clothing.

Maybe because they are more intelligent than us? They tend to live where clothing isn't really a requirement. We often live in places where clothing is needed for survival.

 

[Polymath257]

Provide evidence that prokaryotic cells can evolve into eukaryotic cells —

Well, what are some of the main differences? How about the organelles in eucaryotic cells? Like the mitochondria and choloroplasts?

The fun thing about them and other organelles? Many of them have their own DNA that is distinct from the nuclear DNA of the larger cell.

And that gives a clue (a bit of evidence). Eucaryotic cells are symbiotic collections. They formed when simpler cells formed a symbiotic relationship with engulfed cells as opposed to simply devouring them.

This has been studied quite extensively, I might add.

just show how a living prokaryote can arise through natural processes —

That is abiogenesis, not evolution. And that is being worked on and the answers are gradually being figured out.

and how & why asexual reproduction in some organisms evolved into the more-energy-consuming-and-less-return processes of male/female mating, and I’ll change my understanding even more.

And the way to investigate this is to look at the variety of sex-like behaviors in organisms that can 'go both ways'. And there are many that do. One point is that sex allows for better mixing of the different genes which allows for better adaptation to changing environments. Those organisms that can go both ways tend to go to sexuality in environments that are becoming harsher (*say, drier conditions for an aquatic organism).

Furthermore, most of the machinery of sex isn't present at first. The cross over of DNA and subsequent distribution to daughter cells which later merge to form new individuals (the cellular essence of sex) doesn't require the male/female distinction. And many species at this level simply don't have a hard split between sexes.

Even at much more advanced levels, whether an individual is male or female may not depend on genetics, but rather environment and social clues. Many species of fish and amphibians do not have constant male-female divisions. So that type of thing is much later than the development of sex itself.

So, yes, we know a fair amount about how sex arose *by studying the variations that still exist*. The answers are surprising and contrary to the simplistic views many want to hold, but they are out there.

But you “believe” these events happened.
To not call them a belief set, borders on farcical.

I’m always learning something; are you?[/QUOTE]