Richard Dawkins - God is evil, pedoph...

Richard Dawkins - God is evil, pedophilesa not so bad

There are 3147 comments on the Examiner.com story from Sep 14, 2013, titled Richard Dawkins - God is evil, pedophilesa not so bad. In it, Examiner.com reports that:

"The God of the Qur'an is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Examiner.com.

Atheist Silurist

UK

#2653 Mar 13, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>

<quoted text>
an observable and testable evidence of a change in kind (that's a specific kind of species evolving into a whole different species).
Care to offer up a scientific method?

Genetic analysis has confirmed that the basic principles of evolution hold true. Our relatedness to the rest of the natural world can be measured in our genes. The exact timing of our divergence may never be known,but there is no changing the fact that our evolutionary ancestry goes back billions of years.

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#2654 Mar 13, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
So you also deny DNA evidence in favour of religious dogma?
Humans are little different, from other animals, only chance evolution has seen fit to provide improved intelligence before other animals. Some of these other animals are evolving intelligence in the same way as humans did 200,000 years ago, pigs for example are said to be only a few thousand years behind us and currently as intelligent of as 3 years old child.
I am pretty sure that those pigs will remain pigs, and that again refers to adaptation or micro-evolution, and doesn't necessarily point to a change in kind.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Honey, I have studied Lucy close up, I have studied other fossils close up. So have these people
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fos...
The fossil record of human evolution can be traced back without break for 2.5 million years and with only slight gaps that are filled in with other evidences for almost 7 million years. There is no doubt that we evolved from ape like creatures.
You were the one who began mocking me so don’t get fooking upset because it backfired and why do you consider providing the titles of books that counter you lies to be mocking you?
How could I disagree? Oh that’s so easy, it’s called evidence, incontrovertible proof as compared to the word of a godbot of little intelligence.
You grandmother is no doubt pretty good at crosswords but no doubt she can still learn new tricks, techniques and word meaning and she will use her knowledge as required, that is what is required to be good at something. I am pretty good at my hobby too. What was that you said about mocking you? Your mockery is noted.
Honey, I do not claim to be anything other than what I am and you can lie to your fooking black hearts content if it makes you feel any better. I do not lie and for you to imply that I do is sickening. However I can pretty much guarantee that if you don’t live in a mud hut somewhere out in the desert then my work facilitates your life in some way.
Do you know who designed the mimic controls that help your utility providers ensure that you live a civilised life? Chances are pretty high that it was my company. Do you watch television or the cinema? Chances are that at least some of the ads you watch and some of the technical green screen stuff is down to my company. Do you drive a car, or ride the bus? I have provided ergonomic and mimic designs for steel foundries, oil rigs and in a couple of cases have been able to provide input into the design of the vehicle. We also provide animated training films for military use that are translated into 18 languages. And in a very small way an input into the output of the simulator for the Typhoon (was known as the EFA (European Fighter Aircraft) back then)
Of course I could be lying that I had input into these systems and that you, out of your hard earned wage in a very small way pay help me for living in this world but bare in mind that I have no tolerance for liars.
hahah ..!!! I don't understand how could your detailed Curriculum vitae be beneficial for the sake of our discussion, its like saying "heey look I am a successful business woman so anything I say is the complete truth", I wouldn't care even if you landed on the moon because obviously that wouldn't give you any extra points to prove Darwinian theory.

and FYI there are still people living in mud huts, probably the same people who starve to death so mocking them proves nothing but your inconsiderateness.

Atheist Silurist

Glasgow, UK

#2655 Mar 13, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
I am afraid that is not the case, because so many Muslim scholars accept evolution or at least parts of it.
<quoted text>
.
Scholars in what? islam? Why should I go with the scholars of islam over Scholars in evolution biology and well established scientific principles?

The fact that islamic scholars accept "parts" of the theory of evolution has about as much relevance as to say some train drivers accept parts of it.

The opposition to the theory of evolution come almost exclusively from religious institutions.
It is seen as a direct threat to their traditions and beliefs. The only way to perpetuate the charade is through a proses of willful ignorance and indoctrination.

There are some major advancements in our understanding of genetics and these advancements will help scientists to test aspects of evolution theory,and evolution theory will advance our understanding of genetics and our place in the natural world. By filling our future generations heads with superstitious creationist crap will deprive them of the opportunity to be part of a very interesting and very important line of work.
While people go around denying well established scientific facts genetic engineering is moving on apace. the prospect of cloned humans and resurrected extinct species is not so outlandish anymore. The ethical issues that will inevitably arise from such work will require careful consideration.
The debate over evolution was done and dusted years ago. The principle is being applied in many aspects of biology and will continue to do so as long as it produces results.
Atheist Silurist

Glasgow, UK

#2656 Mar 13, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
I am pretty sure that those pigs will remain pigs, and that again refers to adaptation or micro-evolution, and doesn't necessarily point to a change in kind.
<quoted text>
hahah ..!!! I don't understand how could your detailed Curriculum vitae be beneficial for the sake of our discussion, its like saying "heey look I am a successful business woman so anything I say is the complete truth", I wouldn't care even if you landed on the moon because obviously that wouldn't give you any extra points to prove Darwinian theory.
and FYI there are still people living in mud huts, probably the same people who starve to death so mocking them proves nothing but your inconsiderateness.
It makes no odds that you reject the theory of evolution. Science will advance,discoveries will be made and our understanding of the evolutionary proses will stand or fall on the evidence. So far it stands supreme to anything that was dreamt up in a cave in the desert.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2657 Mar 14, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
but there are many varieties of bacteria, I think the Bacteria issue refers to micro-evolution and these minor changes occur fairly often, not to mention that this only occurs in single sex bacteria and cannot be an evidence that apes and humans can create new genes with new functions.
If a new gene is macro evolution then a bacteria evolving a new gene to let it eat nylon is macro evolution.
How do you know such changes only occur in single sex bacteria? Please explain this barrier you think exists that prevents new genes in twin sex yeast (yes sex began in single celled eukaryotes).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis#Origin_a...
hazem selawi wrote:
some dinus had feathers and koalas have 5 fingers, so what ??!
It shows common decent and that dinos can evolve into birds without evolving entirely new functions but just by modifying what already exists.
hazem selawi wrote:
an ape is totally different than a human,
We're almost exactly the same.
We just have a bigger brain and walk upright.
hazem selawi wrote:
for instance the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.
This is because the Y chromosome is subject to far more mutations than X chromosomes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome#Deg...
There are mammals that have actually lost their Y chromosomes!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome#Fut...
“The Transcaucasian mole vole, Ellobius lutescens, the Zaisan mole vole, Ellobius tancrei, and the Japanese spinous country rats Tokudaia osimensis and Tokudaia muenninki, have lost the Y chromosome and SRY entirely.[12][26][27] Tokudaia spp. have relocated some other genes ancestrally present on the Y chromosome to the X chromosome.[27] Both genders of Tokudaia spp. and Ellobius lutescens have an XO genotype,[27] whereas all Ellobius tancrei possess an XX genotype.[12] The new sex-determining system for these rodents remains unclear.”
hazem selawi wrote:
we should both agree that there are numerous laws of embryology, such as genes work together in teams to form body parts during embryonic development, and that makes it impossible to add genes to any genome because there is no way to coordinate any new gene with existing genes,
There are no laws of embryology.
There's nothing stopping a new gene having just a small effect on embryonic development, and if it's beneficial it will help the embryo survive and thus be passed on the next generation.
hazem selawi wrote:
and what exactly does science tell you about that mystery of the Big Bang ??
That it's a mystery.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2658 Mar 14, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
... The laws of statistics have convinced all who have bothered to calculate the odds that even something as basic as a protein molecule could never arise by chance, consisting as it does of a chain of hundreds of precisely arranged amino acids.
some scientists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, because as we know the average lifespan of a housefly is 20-30 days, so on a time scale it may be possible to observe any kind of evolution going on, and they all failed to accomplish their goal.
Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology acknowledged that:
"..it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed."
Origins of New Genes and Pseudogenes
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/orig...
De Novo Gene Origination

"New genes can additionally originate de novo from noncoding regions of DNA. Indeed, several novel genes derived from noncoding DNA have recently been described in Drosophila (Begun et al., 2007; Levine et al., 2006). For these recently originated Drosophila genes with likely protein-coding abilities, there are no homologues in any other species. Note, however, that the de novo genes described in various species thus far include both protein-coding and noncoding genes. These new genes sometimes originate in the X chromosome, and they often have male germ-line functions."

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#2659 Mar 14, 2014
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know how you were feeling when you wrote this post, but it made me laugh.
Just being myself but I am happy you appreciated it, I am pretty sure Hazem didn’t though

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#2660 Mar 14, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
its common sense you say ..!! so even if Evolution turned out to be the Absolute truth, how would that in any way disprove the existence of a creator ??
<quoted text>
I don't see any common sense in your statement, because obviously adaptation happens on a micro level and doesn't necessarily suggest a change of kind or macro-evolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another)
Perhaps not but it has everything to do with your comment “besides you cannot observe something happened millions of years ago.” The stars prove you can

The theory of evolution is now irrefutable fact. There are simply too many independent lines of evidence that confirm evolution.

Macro, Micro both the same thing, one is simply a lot of the other. Only godbots attempt to obfuscate them.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#2661 Mar 14, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
you were the one who compared between the two things and you are still doing it.
<quoted text>
I am quite certain that you didn't read the entire book, besides who said that he was the only scientist who denies Darwinian evolution ???!!
What two things? You seem to be confused about old and outdated observation compared to scientifically evidence and peer reviewed reality

So you are denying that Björn Kurtén stated that man evolved from an ape like creature over 12 million years ago? Who said he was the only one? I was countering your lies about this one mans belief. I an sure that some small percentage of scientist are at odds with evolution, I believe you will find that they are not well respected and have great difficulty getting tenure unless it’s with the discovery institute goddunit with magic brigade or the Muslim godduit with magic brigade . If they are willing to put their faith before there science then they are welcome to p|ss off into the back rooms of science denial where they belong

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#2662 Mar 14, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
I am pretty sure that those pigs will remain pigs, and that again refers to adaptation or micro-evolution, and doesn't necessarily point to a change in kind.
<quoted text>
hahah ..!!! I don't understand how could your detailed Curriculum vitae be beneficial for the sake of our discussion, its like saying "heey look I am a successful business woman so anything I say is the complete truth", I wouldn't care even if you landed on the moon because obviously that wouldn't give you any extra points to prove Darwinian theory.
and FYI there are still people living in mud huts, probably the same people who starve to death so mocking them proves nothing but your inconsiderateness.
Good guess but you have no clue whether they will remain pigs or not, you simply hope.

And again adaptation is evolution, micro evolution is evolution

Why are you insisting in a change in kind? Is a change in form or intelligence or ability not also evolution? Is it because you don’t understand or because you don’t want to understand? Perhaps you need to look up the meaning of the word before continuing.

Honey, you brought it up, you insinuated, you tried to belittle me so don’t get all incredulous when the reply is more than you can handle.

Again, Darwinian theory is old hat, a good starting point, actually not even that but a good intermediate point. The ancient Greeks started the discussion on evolution

And FYI, Who was mocking, I was stating fact. Mud huts were mentioned to highlight you ignorance in you abuse of who I am and what I do.

As for inconsiderateness you ignorant fool, how the fook can you, who knows nothing about me and what I do to the extent of claiming lies even condescend to make suck an accusation? Ahh I get it , it’s because you have nothing substantial and real to go on so you need to make BS up. Perhaps I should call you buck crick, he also thinks he is good at vomiting BS and lies.
Mahmood

Peterborough, Canada

#2663 Mar 14, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
thank you for proving my point, it wasn't an absurd question, now what if a believer and a follower of Moses died before the coming of Jesus ??? or what if a believer and follower of Jesus died before the coming of Mohammed ???
what is the point of Mohammed's (Islam) message if all the followers of Jesus and/or Moses are still on the right path ??
In order to mask the contradiction, what you and your fellows muslims are doing, is claiming that 2:62 is referring to those Jews/Xtians/Sabians who have passed away before the advent of Mohammad. However, the verse itself does not say that. The verse does not say "those Jews, Xtians, and Sabians who have died before the coming of Allah's final apostle".

What is the point of Mohammad's message? You tell me. Because from what I can see, there is a contradiction which you haven't solved. It says in two places in the Koran that people of the book have nothing to fear, and none of those two verses has conditions attached to them.

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#2665 Mar 14, 2014
Mahmood wrote:
<quoted text>
In order to mask the contradiction, what you and your fellows muslims are doing, is claiming that 2:62 is referring to those Jews/Xtians/Sabians who have passed away before the advent of Mohammad. However, the verse itself does not say that. The verse does not say "those Jews, Xtians, and Sabians who have died before the coming of Allah's final apostle".
What is the point of Mohammad's message? You tell me. Because from what I can see, there is a contradiction which you haven't solved. It says in two places in the Koran that people of the book have nothing to fear, and none of those two verses has conditions attached to them.
you misunderstood my questions Mahmoud, my point is that if one isn't obligated to believe in Mohammed then a pagan also would survive in the hereafter, what you are suggesting is completely illogical, and that's why you have to understand the message of Islam instead of interpreting Quranic verses the way you like it.

Believing in Mohammed is a must in order to be a Muslim, hence all the true followers of the previous prophets were Muslims, so if you were at the time of Moses and believed in his message you are a Muslim, and if you were at the time of Jesus and believed him you would also be a Muslim, so if you were alive at the time of Mohammed the last messenger it would also be a must to believe in him, otherwise you would be a disbeliever.

Islam came as the final message and the complement as it works perfectly at anytime and in anyplace, Moses (Judaism) message was a perfect message at his time and so was Christianity, but as we both know the world changes and such religions would be no longer useful and/or applicable.

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#2666 Mar 14, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps not but it has everything to do with your comment “besides you cannot observe something happened millions of years ago.” The stars prove you can
The theory of evolution is now irrefutable fact. There are simply too many independent lines of evidence that confirm evolution.
Macro, Micro both the same thing, one is simply a lot of the other. Only godbots attempt to obfuscate them.
so are you a 100% sure that evolution did happen ??
and how does that in anyway disprove the existence of a creator ??!
I still don't see any link between the two.

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#2667 Mar 14, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Good guess but you have no clue whether they will remain pigs or not, you simply hope.
And again adaptation is evolution, micro evolution is evolution
Why are you insisting in a change in kind? Is a change in form or intelligence or ability not also evolution? Is it because you don’t understand or because you don’t want to understand? Perhaps you need to look up the meaning of the word before continuing.
you still don't get my point, I don't have any problem with evolution (adaptation for survival), like giraffes evolving their physical Capabilities to reach food, but I have a big problem with Darwinian's theory which suggests a change in kind, so if pigs evolved into much smarter Creatures, that's fine but if they remained pigs and didn't evolve into jigs for instance then your theory fail and such an example would be completely irrelevant.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Honey, you brought it up, you insinuated, you tried to belittle me so don’t get all incredulous when the reply is more than you can handle.
Again, Darwinian theory is old hat, a good starting point, actually not even that but a good intermediate point. The ancient Greeks started the discussion on evolution
And FYI, Who was mocking, I was stating fact. Mud huts were mentioned to highlight you ignorance in you abuse of who I am and what I do.
As for inconsiderateness you ignorant fool, how the fook can you, who knows nothing about me and what I do to the extent of claiming lies even condescend to make suck an accusation? Ahh I get it , it’s because you have nothing substantial and real to go on so you need to make BS up. Perhaps I should call you buck crick, he also thinks he is good at vomiting BS and lies.
no one tried to belittle you in anyway, and I still don't understand how your C.V will help you to prove your point, and its still you who mentioned mud huts in a mockery way, in our real world that's inconsiderateness.

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#2668 Mar 14, 2014
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
If a new gene is macro evolution then a bacteria evolving a new gene to let it eat nylon is macro evolution.
How do you know such changes only occur in single sex bacteria? Please explain this barrier you think exists that prevents new genes in twin sex yeast (yes sex began in single celled eukaryotes).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis#Origin_a...
single sex cells doesn't need males and females, and as far as I know it would be impossible for bisexuals to breed (embryonic rules), so how could mammals make it happen ??
and I think the nylon bacteria is an irrelevant example, because bacteria you cannot compare mammals with bacteria, hence bacteria spread faster.
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
It shows common decent and that dinos can evolve into birds without evolving entirely new functions but just by modifying what already exists.
we don't know that much about Dinus, fossils may only show us some skeletal similarities, how could we know if some Dinus had feathers or not ??
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
We're almost exactly the same.
We just have a bigger brain and walk upright.

we're almost exactly the same like Bananas as well (40%), So what ???!

[QUOTE who="Igor Trip"]<quoted text>
This is because the Y chromosome is subject to far more mutations than X chromosomes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome#Deg...
There are mammals that have actually lost their Y chromosomes!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome#Fut...
“The Transcaucasian mole vole, Ellobius lutescens, the Zaisan mole vole, Ellobius tancrei, and the Japanese spinous country rats Tokudaia osimensis and Tokudaia muenninki, have lost the Y chromosome and SRY entirely.[12][26][27] Tokudaia spp. have relocated some other genes ancestrally present on the Y chromosome to the X chromosome.[27] Both genders of Tokudaia spp. and Ellobius lutescens have an XO genotype,[27] whereas all Ellobius tancrei possess an XX genotype.[12] The new sex-determining system for these rodents remains unclear.”
<quoted text>
There are no laws of embryology.
There's nothing stopping a new gene having just a small effect on embryonic development, and if it's beneficial it will help the embryo survive and thus be passed on the next generation.
<quoted text>
That it's a mystery.
Thank you for the valuable information, I really appreciate it.
so Just briefly are you saying that Darwinian's theory is an irrefutable fact ??
if not how much would you give it out of 10 ??

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#2669 Mar 14, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
What two things? You seem to be confused about old and outdated observation compared to scientifically evidence and peer reviewed reality
So you are denying that Björn Kurtén stated that man evolved from an ape like creature over 12 million years ago? Who said he was the only one? I was countering your lies about this one mans belief. I an sure that some small percentage of scientist are at odds with evolution, I believe you will find that they are not well respected and have great difficulty getting tenure unless it’s with the discovery institute goddunit with magic brigade or the Muslim godduit with magic brigade . If they are willing to put their faith before there science then they are welcome to p|ss off into the back rooms of science denial where they belong
yes I am denying that Björn Kurtén stated that man evolved from an ape like creature, I read the book 2 years ago and pretty sure that he made it obvious to the reader that humans didnt evolve from apes, did you read the book ?? that is a question you should answer by yes or no...!!

I also recommend Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe, you don't have the right to make it look like everybody agrees on Darwin's theory, and again such scientists have nothing to do with religions, they disprove evolution theory by science.
Atheist Silurist

Swansea, UK

#2670 Mar 14, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
yes I am denying that Björn Kurtén stated that man evolved from an ape like creature, I read the book 2 years ago and pretty sure that he made it obvious to the reader that humans didnt evolve from apes, did you read the book ?? that is a question you should answer by yes or no...!!
I also recommend Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe, you don't have the right to make it look like everybody agrees on Darwin's theory, and again such scientists have nothing to do with religions, they disprove evolution theory by science.
"scientists have nothing to do with religions, they disprove evolution theory by science."

Lets see some evidence for your claim?

In his writings supporting intelligent design, Michael Behe, a Lehigh University biochemistry professor and author of “Darwin’s Black Box,” said that “intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on proposed mechanisms of how complex biological structures arose.”

But during cross examination, when plaintiffs’ attorney Eric Rothschild asked Behe to identify those mechanisms, he couldn’t.

Behe had a chance to present evidence for irreducible complexity and he blew it.It was always going to be that way because he had no evidence for his claim in the first place. His religious conviction got in the way. He failed,miserably.

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#2671 Mar 14, 2014
Atheist Silurist wrote:
<quoted text>
"scientists have nothing to do with religions, they disprove evolution theory by science."
Lets see some evidence for your claim?
In his writings supporting intelligent design, Michael Behe, a Lehigh University biochemistry professor and author of “Darwin’s Black Box,” said that “intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on proposed mechanisms of how complex biological structures arose.”
But during cross examination, when plaintiffs’ attorney Eric Rothschild asked Behe to identify those mechanisms, he couldn’t.
Behe had a chance to present evidence for irreducible complexity and he blew it.It was always going to be that way because he had no evidence for his claim in the first place. His religious conviction got in the way. He failed,miserably.
don't you think that the evolution theory somehow contradicts with the Cambrian Explosion ??

you should take in consideration that Charles Darwin discussed the cambrian explosion as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.
Atheist Silurist

Swansea, UK

#2672 Mar 15, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
don't you think that the evolution theory somehow contradicts with the Cambrian Explosion ??
you should take in consideration that Charles Darwin discussed the cambrian explosion as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.
How does the Cambrian Explosion contradict evolution?

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2673 Mar 15, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
single sex cells doesn't need males and females, and as far as I know it would be impossible for bisexuals to breed (embryonic rules), so how could mammals make it happen ??
But just what is sex?
Sex is when two cells (each with just one copy of DNA) fuse into one with now two copies of DNA.

Eukaryote cells have two copies of DNA.
They have two ways of dividing.
They can either make two more copies of DNA and then split in two (Diploid cells. This is how we grow) or they can make two more copies and split into four each with one copy of the DNA (Haploid cells. Sex cells).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis
When two haploid cells meet they can fuse into one.
In single celled animals there is no sexual differences between cells.

In multicellular plants and animals there are distinct male and female cells.
The difference between egg and sperm cells is that eggs are large, full of food and static whilst sperm start as a normal cell but then everything it doesn't need is removed leaving a tiny cell with just the DNA and a tail so it can swim.
The reason for there being two sexes isn't really understood but as the sperm is only adding DNA to the egg there are probably less biological problems then if a whole cell was added.
In an embryo the same cells can either form into egg or sperm producing cells. Because of this many species can actually change sex, including some fish that start as male and grow into females and others that start as female and grow into males.
hazem selawi wrote:
and I think the nylon bacteria is an irrelevant example, because bacteria you cannot compare mammals with bacteria, hence bacteria spread faster.
Size doesn't matter. We all have DNA.
hazem selawi wrote:
we don't know that much about Dinus, fossils may only show us some skeletal similarities, how could we know if some Dinus had feathers or not ??
Feathers can be seen in some small dinosaur fossils.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosa...
hazem selawi wrote:
we're almost exactly the same like Bananas as well (40%), So what ???!
So all life is related. Nothing is entirely new so the distinction between species is far less than you think.
hazem selawi wrote:
Thank you for the valuable information, I really appreciate it.
so Just briefly are you saying that Darwinian's theory is an irrefutable fact ??
if not how much would you give it out of 10 ??
9.9 but only because nothing can ever be truly proven.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 36 min Subduction Zone 206
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 41 min Subduction Zone 75,430
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 50 min Nemesis 4,070
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 1 hr Subduction Zone 6,108
Majority of Scots now have no religion (May '16) 1 hr John 164
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Eagle 12 - 32,055
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 7 hr Eagle 12 - 581
More from around the web