Consistency

I didn't make any claims or assertions. I suggested a view point. Of course all life is related on paper since the DNA is the blueprint of every organisms body.. we all have a liver, a heart, muscles, kidneys etc.. SO.. all species will certainly without a shred of doubt have similar genes. Hence what you said doesn't refute my suggestions. I don't have any evidence that various life forms were spontaneously created and you don't have any evidence on creating DNA yourself in a lab from non-biological molecules. Do you see the fallacy in both religion and man-written evolution? Why hasn't a mad scientist tested it out? You know.. a chimp with a human. See the result...

When no one is really sure.. they aren't facts.. they are assumptions. Now.. Lets say a creator(s) exist, I'm not saying one does or more do, I'm being skeptical. "What if?" Lets say a creator or creators created one ape, not in the way architects create a blue-print of a building and then hire people to build the building but in a spontaneous creative process create 1 ape; then modify the DNA during a new creative process and by doing this create a different yet similar ape.. and by continuing the same DNA modifying process.. these creators create 50+ different ape species. Would you really be able to tell million years after the creative act if a creator(s) created DIVERSITY between species by a spontaneous altering DNA creative process? I am not expecting an ape to give birth to a non ape. I understand you perferctly but you seem to not understand what I am saying. I don't believe in a specie evolving into another specie and there is no direct evidence other than man-written assumptions. A chimp with 48 chromosomes can mate with a human with 46 chromosomes and produce a sterile offspring? Yes. The only animal you can successfully mate with would be an ape.Not just any ape, obviously: it needs to be one of the apes designated as homo sapiens. The fact that you didn't realise that, is testament to your monumental ignorance of the subject on which you are pontificating. Perhaps you should stop. You assume I didn't know. another.. as in not homo sapiens.

That assumptions are common in the scientific literature and hypotheses are rare. People should know the difference so they can spot the assumptions in the scientific literature. Assumptions lead to confusion when taken as fact and ultimately to chaos. And please don't take it as a personal attack if you're a scientific researcher. Addressing the OP's question fully: Is Mathematics Alone a safe medium for exploring the frontiers of Science. Or should Observation and Hypothesis lead in front ? Mathematics = man made. Observation and Hypothesis without coming to your own conclusions is the best way for exploring the frontiers of science. Coming to your own conclusions is making assumptions.

It was a rhetorical question. How did the first single eukaryotic cell come to be? (I'm really interested) Mutations are normal and part of real evolution. Sperm DNA changes all the time when new sperm is produced... so Its obvious older fathers would pass down more mutations than younger fathers... nothing new. This does not explain a complete divergence of DNA into another specie. Addressing the link: Where does diet and environment fit into the data? Folic Acid? Can I mate with another ape and produce offsprings? (Seriously)

hy·poth·e·sis A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth. as·sump·tion A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof: "they made certain assumptions about the market". ev·i·dence The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- An assumption is a guess without evidence while an hypothesis is a good guess made from the evidence. The purpose of making an hypothesis is to come to the truth and making an assumption is to twist the facts to fit your view point at all costs.

First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved. The biggest problem with evolutionary theory is when the basis of its theory is indirectly based on a "common descent". I agree.. life evolved and mutations happened but like I stated.. the theory falls apart when a group of people state that a specie can evolve into another totally different specie. Its bolony when a person has knowledge of biochemistry and bacteriology. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain. The most contradictory sentence I've ever read! What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence. Willful egotism. I hate when people tip-toe around it while NEVER ADDRESSING THE QUESTION. If a creature similar to a chicken laid the first eggs... where did this first creature come from? An egg? ...and who created the egg of the similar chicken creature?

My answer above was a specific reply to another user. People shouldn't interrupt because they have a need to break everyone down. I read them and understand the bolony they project. "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Biochemistry doesn't line up. Let me know when humans acquire the urate oxidase enzyme to break down uric acid after eating large amounts of meat. TV is man-made like evolution theory is man-written.. like the bible is man-written. All made up to stroke egos. None are real like you and me. Men wrote the bible to control and relax the masses. There is no such thing as superior intellect. You either have intellect or not. Of course the sheep would steal it. The sheep's nose is getting stimulated by the odors of cooked meat. Even I don't eat animal products and my nose gets stimulated by cooked meat. I know how humans co-produce Vitamin B12 with bacteria.. so the generalisations of the so called experts thinking we are omnivores are just as bad as the generalisations that we evolved from a common ancestor. Clitoral stimulation only goes so far... intercourse is a need. Its called natural selection. Like I said before.. everyone gets a distorted view of nature. Nature doesn't include human civilization. Nature is for the strong and contains predators which hunt down and eat those men with small penises and the weak women that indulge in foods. Education is basically copy and paste information in the brain. A PHD just shows a person can regurgitate information without thinking for themselves. I'm really only trying to demonstrate your ignorance in basic human biology..... Your first sentence basically states that I should not think for myself. I have to think like you and everyone else. Yes it does pass as a scientifically valid question. You only believe it doesn't because you can't answer it... Willfully making a man-made choice of civilization such as studying has nothing to do with real evolution. Succession and disturbance are natural forces = constant equilibrium = balance. There is no major disturbance in human civilization; its mostly egotistic succession. You'll need to elaborate on how science is just a "tool" for helping us to understand "reality".... Saying so doesn't make it so. Intellect is a tool. Information for its own sake is useless. Religion isn't a tool. It was written by wise men like me and then a bunch of people collected the quotes and placed them in a book for those who lack wisdom and ultimately virtues.

Why are you replying to messages which aren't addressed to you? Real sceptics like me are rare. Being sceptic is not about rejecting evidence outright like the majority of so called sceptics. Evolution evidence isn't strong evidence. Its OUTRIGHT assumptions.. "an animal has a hip bone.. so they were a land mammal" without first seeing if there is a purpose of the hip bone in the first place. As a true sceptic.. many reasons come to mind.. stabilizer for swimming and stabilizer for sex. Let me get this straight.. a fish decided to go on land.. grew legs and evoled in an amphibian(frog?)... then through evolution, lets say.. higher sun temperature.. this amphibian evolved into a reptile... then through many years of evolution said.. "screw this.. I prefer the water!"... and hops back into the water to grow a blow hole? Does it sound right? Sounds like the bible.

Fuel for the brain when glucose isn't present. Brain can't produce its own ketone bodies. Ketosis is survival metabolism.

There is nothing wrong with agriculture which follows the laws of nature. Example: Chickens are excellent predators of insects.. so instead of locking them up.. place them on fruit orchards to eat the insects. We don't need to poison ourselves with pesticides. Healthy soil requires micro-organisms from the dung of herbivores. We gotta STOP with manipulating the planet. Its insanity. The lands degrades whether there is too many herbivores and without herbivores. Watch the video on my comment: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/57883-who-here-is-a-global-warming-skeptic/page-8#entry728859 Gaia hypothesis is right. The only thing missing is predators hunting down humans. Cannibalism comes after all the ruminants are Extinct.

Hydrogen/helium sacs or work on yourself and get a girlfriend. Egoism in society has gone rampid.

I can also read wikipedia. Can I get a reference where red giants radiate away more energy?

Did a carnivore willfully choose to be a predator and a herbivore willfully choose to get hunted down? Mainly because animals don't move and evolve without predation and/or pressures. The predators had to be created with the plant eaters for the purpose of weeding out the weak; natural selection and ultimately evolution. The universe is a closed-loop system and so is everything about nature except human civilization. Thousands of virgins. I strongly believe anyone who has never had sex; should not talk about evolution. How did a penis and a vagina come to fit perfectly together? I don't believe in an unobservable creator because there is the question of who created the creator. My only hypothesis is that the Sun and the planets are doing their dance and out of this dance... create organisms through a fusion process when organisms are needed to fit in the closed-loop system or after a mass extinction. thought = assumption(hypothesis without evidence) = a guess. Maybe the hipbones in whales serve another purpose than in land mammals or they serve the exact same purpose as in humans. Since whales are bigger than small fish.. the hipbone could serve as stabilizer for swimming. Since we aren't whales.. we don't know its true purpose. Before or after the land mammals drowned?

The outer atmosphere is inflated and tenuous, making the radius immense and the surface temperature low, somewhere from 5,000 K and lower. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_giant A G-type main-sequence star (G V), often (and imprecisely) called a yellow dwarf, or G dwarf star, is a main-sequence star of spectral type G and luminosity class V. Such a star has about 0.8 to 1.2 solar masses and surface temperature of between 5,300 and 6,000 K. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_dwarf Surface temperature is lower in the red giant.. so I don't see what you are getting at... My point is the big picture... more ruminants grazing and migrating leads to more vegetation.. more vegetation leads to more carbon fixation which leads to more oxygen in the air and eventually evaporating... which then leads to more oxygen in the hydrosphere and eventually more rain, aka fresh water. High mountain tops near volcanoes? My immune system says different. You should come over to milan, italy and you'll say different when air pollution alarms your immune system which then attacks itself via the cox 2 enzyme.

Reduction in mass. Hence less intense and lower temperature on earth. http://vimeo.com/8239427 http://www.feasta.org/events/general/2009_lecture.htm Some additional video links: http://www.savoryinstitute.com/2013/02/resources/video-library/ Yes in cities where there is massive amounts of air pollution, which not only kills plants, it kills us. Everyone thrives outside of cities.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11048719 Can the apple feeding race mate with the hawthorn feeding race and produce viable offsprings? Simply untrue. Evolutionary theory makes no such prediction - therefore not only is the argument from incredulity logically flawed in of itself, it's leveled at a strawman. The last universal ancestor (LUA), also called the last universal common ancestor (LUCA), or the cenancestor, is the most recent organism from which all organisms now living on Earth descend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor If the above is true, so is my original comment quoted above.

When it lacks vegetation. http://www.icr.org/article/sun-shrinking/ And rainfall is driven by oxygen which evaporates. Who produces oxygen from carbon dioxide? Manure contains grass seeds if the cow was free to migrate and eat mature grass(which contains seeds) instead of being confined and fed grains. Manure is also rich in micro-organisms which are the basis of healthy soil. I will find the lecture video where they did an experiment by placing dung on desert land and it turned into a healthy grassland. CO2 isn't the enemy when there is an abundance of vegetation. Think big. This is negative small clustured thinking put together for the purpose of sounding smart.

I believe in evolution as it actually happens however not in a specie evolving into another specie and especially don't believe in man-written evolution to fit a narrow-minded view which excludes the possibility of creators without free will. This contradicts the basic laws of nature and common sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor Everything about nature is in symbiosis and in constant equilibrium except human civilization and whatever else is made-up from the same type of mentality of a civilized human. Examples of symbiosis in nature: 1) different types of micro-organisms in the GI tract are only able to break down certain molecules to other molecules until passing them over to another micro-organism which has the enzymes to break these molecules down further. 2) micro-organisms break down certain molecules, produce vitamins and produce a percentage of amino acids for its host in return for a warm place to live and energy. 3) We eat the fruit for the purpose of spreading the seed for the plant. Example of constant equilibrium in nature: herbivores eat grass to keep an equilibrium in vegetation and to spread grass seeds, insectivores eat insects, frugivores eat fruit/nuts/edible leaves and carnivores eats the weak mammals including their rivals youngs to keep an equilibrium in the whole population. Absurd assumtions of evolutionary theory: that a small fish can evolve into a 150 ton whale or that a small creature can evolve into a cow over millions of years. If evolutionary theory is correct... a herbivore can evolve into a carnivore and vice-versa by consuming the opposite diet.

I haven't read the whole thread however I am not convinced entirely on global warming. Is the temperature rising? Yes but whether a higher temperature is good or bad is where I am sitting on the fence. There is other factors to take into account. 1) We know that the Sun use to be much larger in the past. Hence higher global temperatures. 2) Dinosaurs use to be much bigger than current land animals, had lizard skins for the protection of higher amounts of UV radiation and the herbivorous ones required more vegetation daily. My hypothesis based on the evidence. Yes the planet is getting hotter but it could be mainly because we are cutting down large amounts of vegetation, hence less carbon fixation and that herbivorous animal don't have the liberty to do what they are meant to do. That is, eat grass, migrate and poop in less fertile lands and by doing so.. converting unhealthy lands/deserts into healthy grasslands. Healthy soil rich in microorganisms. There is scientific evidence with what I am saying and I will post it once I find it again. More ruminant dung = more vegetation = more carbon fixation = more oxygen = lower/cooler temperature.

Most people don't have ethics. This is why wise men wrote the religious books and law for the sole purpose of keeping people in line like mice. The only hindrance is your own inadequacies. We agree that we can learn from our own mistake if the individual chooses to but we need common sense(ethics) so we don't end up blowing each other up during an experiment.

triglyceride [tri-glis´er-īd] a compound consisting of three molecules of fatty acids bound with one molecule of glycerol; a neutral fat that is the usual storage form of lipids in animals. triglycerides are most likely back up fuel which circulate in the blood and are used by cells when needed.

I didn't say I was ANTI-science or ANTI-religion. A non-conformist is not an anti-conformist. I read the information and don't accept everything about evolution and religion. Only what is actually factual.

From my personal experience. People let their ego(mental inadequacies/jealousy) get in the way and by doing so, limit themselves and other people. Plus come up with excuses for their mental inadequacies. Everyone wants to be a Genius.

Religion is bolony to me because it was written by men from an egotistic point of view and contradicts the basic laws of nature. Evolution theory is bolony to me because it was written by men from an egotistic point of view and contradicts the basic laws of nature. Religion is anti-science. Evolution theory is anti-religion. What do you call someone who doesn't follow the far right and far left type of mentality? Not anti but simply non-religious/non-evolution type of mentality?

You have no EVIDENCE which says we LOST THE ABILITY to produce the essential amino acids. Its bolony. Stop spreading unscientific information. Only plants and bacteria have the enzymes, and have always only had them. If we had the enzymes to produce our own essential amino acids, we wouldn't need to eat, we wouldn't need a mouth, we could stand under the sun and do photosynthesis like plants. But we can't. Animals(like us) don't lack the ability to synthesize all the amino acids. Animals(like us) lack the ability to synthesize the essential amino acids. Animals(like us) can synthesize the non-essential amino acids from essential amino acids.