Reece101

As long as he didn’t own slaves. 

In 1950, the youngest people to be born into slavery and performing some sort of labor around the time of emancipation would have been in their 90's.  Martin Luther King Jr. was only 21, and he did not graduate from Boston University until around 1955.  

What do you consider noteworthy about him not 'owning' slaves? 

It's a conversation starter.

It is impossible to tell where a person was born simply by looking at them.

A critique of "racism" ≠ "racism"

Racism is a nonsense, malicious term

No one mentioned fetishes...We were discussing standard recreational sex choices....No whipped cream necessary.

No Idea what CHA might be, as I could find no immediate contextual reference to it.

Nonetheless as ever I did state "Notwithstanding physiological anomalies".

And as I previously stated also, attraction relative to recreational sex may be genetically influenced, but is also certainly socially influenced and maybe also environmentally influenced.

Though the distinction I make, lies between procreation and recreation. Homosexual sex is a recreational derivative of the procreational drive, as are the many other methods of achieving sexual satisfaction. Choices Choices Choices.

And as I keep stressing "gay" as in relationship choices,  is a social construct and nothing whatsoever to do with genetics.

As for animals......My dog is happy to hump my leg, and my tortoise goes a bundle on my work boots......So is this special genetics or just the urge to procreate in the absence of an appropriate mate?

As for history...Nature has always thrown up developmental obscurities. That's stating the obvious....And homosexual sex has long since been a method of achieving orgasm.

So why do such protagonists have to keep writing so much into the justification of the obvious....Because historically, and (contrary to popular thinking) also currently, homosexual sex is a social taboo. 

1.  It’s a fact homosexual behaviour and gender fluidity are well documented in mammals other than us. Is it really correct to state “mixed social messages relating to procreational urges and associated recreational sex is where the confusion arises.” And also “As a species we have developed a social tendency to overlook and misinterpret the intended purpose of our sex organs.” Or are you off the mark and there’s a much more deeper understanding to be had?
   
2. Both transgenderism and homosexuality are not modern phenomena. They go back thousands of years in a wide range of ancient societies. 
   

Eugenics is an ethical issue, not a practical one. 

- So Eugenics is science?

I’m just going by common definitions. 

- You & logic are like water & fire. I can't help you.

It isn’t because Earth’s inhabited lands are one biome for humans. It’s only possible for you to say that with a straight face due to modern technology. Ask yourself why aren’t modern humans that diverse? The only large/wide difference population wise is skin pigmentation and that’s not saying much. It’s because the finches have been separated for millions of years, modern humans have not. Yes, I know it’s hard to comprehend big numbers.

- Yet they are still finches.

What do you think of ancient humans/hominids such as homo erectus and further back australopithecus? 

- Either ape or human, nothing in between.

You have your own definition of what constitutes species.

- I don't expect anything less from an evolutionary fantasist.

How long have modern humans been around?

- No one actually knows.

I personally don’t equate mutation with randomness.

- There goes evolution out the door.

You gave me a link that doesn’t support any of that.  

- Lmao! It's your OWN link & its sources that says those things. Oops... that's embarrassing.

I admit, I couldn’t be bothered reading through what you said.

- And clearly your sources too. You don't have faith, you have blind faith. 

From a quick google search this is the definition google gave me: 

A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.

- E.g. Darwin's finches.

What I’m saying is you’re making the inclusive circle smaller going from apes to great apes. You’re starting to sound like one of those “evolutionists.”

- Bro, your red herrings are becoming smellier. 

- By now, you should realize that the this is not about the postulates of evolution, rather about the tactics of evolutionationists in using ambiguous definitions & equivocating between different meanings to allow for their mythology to exist.

Sure bud. 

- That's what I thought.

- In your dreams. Do the work then, build the argument from 'fossil record' to 'evolution by natural selection'. It may be a waste of time, because it's an impossible feat.

An impossible feat to convince someone as wilfully ignorant as you maybe. 

- I don't see the argument. 

- As long as you bring a single supportive actual evidence, you could use Homer's Iliad for all I care.

Of course that would be for all you care. 

- Where is the evidence? 

It’s a good thing we don’t just rely on the fossil record to explain evolution then.

- You don't say... glad you defeated your own claims.

I’m pretty sure animals don’t just pop into existence though.

- Therefore, they magically evolve from each-other. Cavemen must think like you do.

Okay, I agree. Changing and moving doesn’t necessarily entail evolution, such as when I move my arm.

- You're not funny. You're pathetic. You can't even bring a single evidence for your mythologies. A young earth creationist can perform far better than you in defending his beliefs. How pitiable is that!

You can consider that to any organism the sustains itself through other organism or even chemical compounds and radiation absorbed. 

But why does this matter? 

- Went right over your head didn't it. You should put more effort into thinking & less effort into blind-faithing. 

Both the cell and virus require energy. 

- The cell produces its own. The virus doesn't. 

- You're sounding more religious than a born-again Christian. 

But I guess it makes you closer to Allah (your magical sky daddy). Pathetic! 

Do you want to carry on using this toxic language?

- Again, this isn't funny anymore. It's so pathetic. 

That was part of my explanation of how scientific theories work. 

Your turn. 

- Alright. If you are not capable of understanding a simple concept such as a circular argument, there really isn't much for us to discuss. 

Strawman. “here is my word, therefore it’s true” is an invalid argument as well. 

You still need to think it through. 

- Yeah. You're hopeless. What a waste of time.

Yes, humanity will learn more and explain evolution better. I agree. 

- No. Evolution's only fate is the sewers of history. 

So just one guy who you don’t like for his militant atheism?

It goes to show It’s because of your feelings you don’t believe in evolution. 

What makes you feel good is all you care about.

I’m sure your perspective of evolution would be different if someone you felt positive of taught you about it.

- Not even the combined brain-power & force of charisma of all 7 billion people on Earth today is enough to save this decrepit mythology. 

I asked because you almost have to be a Young Earth Creationist to believe evolution doesn’t/hasn’t occurred. What are your beliefs?

- That's the sad state we live in today, it won't last long though. The same was thought of myths like Eugenics, it's just a matter of time. In truth, the evolutionary myths have mostly been discarded, just hastily replaced by new myths every time, giving the impression of persistence & consistency.

Species is the lowest rank on the taxonomical tree.  

Of course two closely related species are interfertile. 

- You're begging the question.

Also keep in mind the Galápagos Islands is essentially one biome.

Little evolutionary pressure apart from the various foods they eat such as fruit, seeds, nectar, etc.

- The five continents are one biome for humans... [insert the rest of what you said]

So yes, it’s speciation. 

- Not in the sense of new species being non-infertile with existing ones.

Depending on the organism, let’s say 100,000 generations, you think they’ll still be the same species from where their ancestors started?

- Dude. Your own DNA is copied & split in your own body into 100 trillion cells, each cell copying DNA & making some 50 million proteins, that's 5 billion trillion times (not just 100,000), & still the same effing DNA. Cyanobacteria has been going on since 3.5 billion years, that's more than 100 trillion generations. It's still cyanobacteria.

So humans have been around for 3.5 billion years? 

- No habla English no more? 

All mutations are harmful? Like becoming lactose tolerant? You can see this in the human genetic/migratory record. This is natural selection.

- Another one of their tricks: equivocation. They call variants & snips mutation to give the impression of "randomness". These evolutionationists are really hopeless. Pathetic!

You gave me a link that doesn’t support any of that.  

- Lmao! It's your OWN link & its sources that says those things. Oops... that's embarrassing.

You’re saying any species that can breed with each other are not different species, correct?

- Under a strict definition of species, yes.

You’ve moved the goalpost from apes to great apes yet humans still full into that category. 

- False. It depends on the context. They use 'apes' generally to refer to great apes, sometimes inclusive of humans, sometimes more generally to gibbons as well, depending on the context. 

You’re saying species can’t be interfertile, correct? Or are you using your own definitions? 

- By now, you should realize that the this is not about the postulates of evolution, rather about the tactics of evolutionationists in using ambiguous definitions & equivocating between different meanings to allow for their mythology to exist.

This is one piece of supportive evidence you asked for which you said would be sufficient.

- In your dreams. Do the work then, build the argument from 'fossil record' to 'evolution by natural selection'. It may be a waste of time, because it's an impossible feat.

Do you want to go into genetics now?

- As long as you bring a single supportive actual evidence, you could use Homer's Iliad for all I care.

If you don’t believe in evolution and you’re not a Young Earth Creationist, what do you believe?

- That's a false dichotomy. I don't have to believe either.

It’s reasonable for me to conclude you think animals just pop into existence in the course of 100s of millions of years.

- That's a double false dichotomy. First of all, evolutionary theory =/= evolution. It's possible that animals have evolved from one another; in case this is true it still does not entail that the theory of evolution, which is just a claim, is true too. In the same way that the truth of objects falling because of gravity does not entail the truth of any theory attempting to explain it, for instance Aristotle's elements-attracts-elements theory -which we know is BS. Regardless of the truth gravitation, Aristotle's theory is BS. Likewise, regardless of the truth of evolution, the evolutionary theory is BS. Second of all, no evolution occurred does not necessarily mean pop-into-ion occurred. The two are equally unlikely occurrences from a natural perspective. In the fossil record, animals appear & disappear as is.  

If you have the truth, I want to know about it.

- Have you been listening? I don't believe we are even capable of explaining Life at this point. In their attempts to explain the cosmos the Greeks resorted to astrology: conspiratorial anecdotal ad-hoc accounts for lack of sufficient understanding & information about the cosmos. The evolutionary theory is the astrology of Life, a bunch of conspiratorial anecdotal ad-hoc accounts for lack of sufficient understanding & information about Life.

First: What do you mean not everything that changes and moves doesn’t evolve in evolutionary terms?

- Exactly what it says. To "evolve" in the evolutionary sense is to "become various different species from common ancestor by way of natural selection & random mutation". 

Second: What do you mean viruses are not self-sustaining and self-reproducing?

- Exactly just that. Do you even know what a virus is? A parasite to the cell.

No organism is if they don’t have energy to consume/produce.

- Which the virus doesn't, unlike the cell.

Third: What do you mean there’s no such thing as speciated bacteria? Scientists speciate bacteria all the time in the lab.

- No such thing. Speciation does occur in the definition of "speciate" though...

Fourth:  Cyanobacteria are prokaryotic which means their evolution is difficult to study. Though scientist are starting to apply more techniques. 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10531-015-0888-6

- Lmao! Isn't this just wonderfully pathetic. With this much faith you have in this mythology you could've been a high priest in Shamanism. 

Well you don’t consider adaptation as evolution. So there’s no point

- That's 27 fallacies in one sentence. I could list them, but I may lose half my brain in the process.

The theory of evolution by natural selection explains how evolution occurs.

P1. If Evolutionary Theory, then Evolution.

P2. Evolution.

C. Therefore, Evolution.

I only see your strawman. 

- Do you now? Try one more time, see if it is. 

- You can't use your words? We've been through this. "here is a link, therefore it's true" is a fallacious argument.

Are you saying my words are more trustworthy than the links I share? Think that through.

- Strawman. "here is a link, therefore it's true" is an invalid argument.

What’s the reality if not evolution?

- Maybe we'll figure that out in 500 years, maybe not. It took a millennia & a half to go from Aristotle's 'gravity = element attraction' to al-Biruni's 'gravity = force inversely proportional to distance between two massive objects'; & another millennia to get to Einstein's 'gravitation = curvature in space-time proportional to momentum of contained mass'. You, & your evolutionationist masters, are being grossly presumptuous in thinking their "element-attraction" approach to Life is no more than a farce.

So people online who aren’t experts.

- Evolutionationists = Richard Dawkins & his evolutionary biologist class.

Notwithstanding physiological anomalies..... Every male or female is born with either male or female reproductive organs.....That is one definition of straight.

How one chooses to satisfy corresponding urges recreationally is another issue....Straight in this context simply defines one modus operandi.

Have you ever considered why these contentious discussions only ever consider LGBTQ and not SLGBTQ?

I don't see anything wrong with that traditional belief

Does Bernard Williams believe in questioning these "preconceived notions"

Somehow I'm reminded a 'bit of Authenticity,

Authenticity, philosophy, has a focus on the individual, I 'think.

As well as them being true to themselves and their beliefs, without acting in a manner they do not believe or not 'wish to do.

Sartre's Waiter - Existential Comics

Authenticity (philosophy) - Wikipedia

"Authenticity is a concept in psychology, existential psychiatry, existentialist philosophy and aesthetics. In existentialism, authenticity is the degree to which a person's actions are congruent with their beliefs and desires, despite external pressures to conformity."

Well, even religion, the religious disagree on issues, history, meaning of events.

There can be nuance I'd argue, and if times it becomes 'uncomfortable, the one's in influence 'insisting on their view. .

Does not one see the same picture in human government and society?

Religion need not be mentioned then, enough that a community insists upon a certain view of their countries history, or the evils of Communism/Capitalism.

Additionally, in a number of religions, I'd argue there's pieces included for the 'point, of critical thought.

Whether parables in the Bible, stories as Job, or King David and the man who steals a lamb.

Zen Buddhism's use of koans, to demonstrate the inadequacy of logical reasoning and to provoke enlightenment.

Course on the other hand, some devout believers might not take kindly to questioning and kritiks, to their faith, be it Theists, Atheists, Capitalists, Communists.

Blasphemy, degenerates of culture, society, and traitors, what.

What is the gist, of Bernard Williams's view of integrity?

Not all traits decrease inter-fertility though. You misunderstood what I said. 

- What are you even saying! The indoctrination is too deep. Take time to think things through, then say something sensible.

By the way, using your same logic, will you admit not all apes are the same species?

- What logic that might be? If a species is such that the case of lack of interfertility with existing species, then all -great- apes are indeed the same species. That, contingent of course on wether gorillas are interfertile with the others, as the dispute is still going -which actually shows how confused & ignorant these people are.

interfertile: (of plants and animals) able to interbreed.

Interbreed: (with reference to an animal) breed or cause to breed with another of a different race or species.

Do you agree with them?

- What's your point? 

- Don't be shy. Make the argument. Still waiting. A single *supportive* evidence is sufficient.

In terms of the fossil record: We can see transitions between species that have similar traits which get drastically different the further you look back/forward through geological time. 

- And? Continue. How do you go from there to Evolution?

 Can you tell me how I’m wrong? 

- First of all, Evolution = biodiversity by natural selection & random mutation. If it's not that, it's not evolution. Not every thing that changes & moves is "evolving" in evolutionary terms. Second of all, viruses can not evolve in the evolutionary sense, for they are not self-sustaining & self-reproducing. Darwinian evolution on a virus is a spinning wheel. Third of all, no such thing as "speciated" bacteria. If you're talking about the ecoli bacteria, then even the universe isn't large enough to accommodate evolution theory with that. Fourth of all, the oldest living fossil is a bacteria (cyanobacteria) & it has yet to "speciate" after more than 100 trillion generations. Finally, if this myth of a theory has any shred of spec of probability how come it's so utterly absently supported.   

Understanding how we came to be. Pretty simple. 

- So, useful in mythology. Alright. I expected a bit more.

How is it fallacious?

- Read carefully then realize:

P1. If Evolutionary Theory, then Evolution.

P2. Evolution.

C. Therefore, Evolution.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/

- You can't use your words? We've been through this. "here is a link, therefore it's true" is a fallacious argument.

‘Oh yeah you need to find a graviton before you can have a theory of gravity.’

- That's what you just said about evolution a couple lines ago: "theory of evolution by natural selection explains how evolution occurs."... Oops...

I made an argument using your logic. Do you understand? 

You say the theory of evolution necessitates abiogenesis.

But then I applied the same logic to the theory of gravity in terms of the graviton. 

- You are really slow aren't you. Why don't you give the above a second read, maybe you'll see what the problem is. I can't help you beyond that.

It’s alright to say you don’t understand something. 

- That doesn't help much in a debate though.

Well I am trying to understand where you’re coming from.

- Do you have specific questions?

Who are you talking about exactly? 

- They = Evolutionationists.

(I)

P1. Speciation is non-interfertility with existent species.

P2. Darwin's finches are interfertile.

C. Therefore, no speciation occurred in Darwin's finches.

(II)

P1. Speciation is non-interfertility with existent species but also not.

P2. Darwin's finches have speciated.

P3. Darwin's finches are interfertile.

P4. Hybridization is interbreeding between separate species.

C. Therefore, Darwin's finches hybridize as separate species.

(III)

P1. Speciation is non-interfertility with existent species.

P2. Darwins finches are non-interfertile.

C. Therefore, speciation occurred in Darwin's finches.

Speciation: When two groups of animals of the same species become genetically isolated from each other, which develop different traits further decreasing their chances of breeding and/or creating viable offspring.

- As I said. That's (II), & it's invalid. It doesn't mean Jack Schitt. A Chinese, an African & a European developed different traits, still interfertile (same DNA). You're proving exactly my point, evolutionationists can not deal with strict definition, because they will hit a wall if they do, as they can't fantasize. 

 Would you agree with that definition? Would it ruin your argument? If you don’t agree with that definition, how are you defining it?

- (I) is the fact, the rest is nonsense.

- It's like me asking you, what caused the apple to split? & you answering because I want to eat it. That's evolution by natural selection in a nutshell.

It isn’t like I’m saying Allah did it. 

- Are you actually dumb or are you pretending to be?

It’s funny when someone asks for five pieces of evidence when it suits them, but you’re asking for one so you can focus on it while ignoring the rest.

Alright I’ll play. The fossil record. 

- Don't be shy. Make the argument. Still waiting. A single *supportive* evidence is sufficient.

- It doesn't matter. It's impossible to ascertain the origins of Life without understanding Life first. Any attempt to theorize on this is essentially an appeal to ignorance. The claim of evolution is basically: "I'm true because I haven't been proven false". What evolutionary theory is to Life is like what astrology is to the Cosmos. A giant conspiracy founded on a bunch of ad hoc anecdotes. As I said, maybe in 500 years. Maybe less, who knows!

If you have a better alternative, I’m all ears. 

- Again, are you actually slow is this some tactic?

The difference is I don’t invoke gods when I’m ignorant about stuff.

It lets me accept evidence easier. You should try it. 

Allah is one hell of a drug though. 

- The amount of nonsense in this statement is nausea inducing. I almost puked.

Rapid reproducing organisms such as viruses and bacteria evolve (speciate) faster than larger organism. This is basic knowledge. 

- You mean basic fantasy. No such thing. What you're saying is absolute drivel. You may wanna brush your teeth after this. 

Therefore Allah popped animals into existence in the course of 100s of millions of years. Right?

- These cheap tactics can't save your mythology one bit.

Understand how we came to be. 

- You have yet to show what you claimed. That the theory of evolution has been useful in something. Give me ONE thing.

P1. If Evolutionary Theory, then Evolution.

P2. Evolution.

C. Therefore, Evolution.

You gotta admit, it’s better than animals just popping into existence, right?

- I'm sure that's what you tell yourself to justify your mythology. Still fallacious. Sorry.

Scientific theories explain how the world works which are backed up by an accumulation of evidence. 

Evolution has been substantiated as fact.

Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.

- Is that a fact? Show me those proofs. I'm still waiting.

‘Oh yeah you need to find a graviton before you can have a theory of gravity.’

- That's what you just said about evolution a couple lines ago: "theory of evolution by natural selection explains how evolution occurs."... Oops...

I made an argument using your logic. Do you understand? 

You say the theory of evolution necessitates abiogenesis.

But then I applied the same logic to the theory of gravity in terms of the graviton. 

- You are really slow aren't you. Why don't you give the above a second read, maybe you'll see what the problem is. I can't help you beyond that.

- Yes. Allah does what He pleases. It's not up to us to decide what Allah pleases, all we can do is ascertain the creation & unravel its mysteries. The evolutionary mythology is still a bunch of drivel. 

So are you saying it’s more likely for Allah to pop animals into existence then he is to evolve them?

- Or it is maybe that you struggle with reading?

Why not be a Young Earth Creationist if you accept Allah is omnipotent and has the power to pop animals into existence?

Why not believe in last thursdayism? Allah just created the universe last Thursday and he planted memories in our head.

Be carful not to overdose on Allah. 

- You sound exactly like them, they can't produce arguments, so they have to resort to jiggery-pokery.  

Who’s they? It depends how closely related they are. Remember the tree of life? Each brunch has its own twigs, etc.

- They: the evolutionationists of course. You don't seem to get the argument, lemme make plainer:

(I)

P1. Speciation is non-interfertility with existent species.

P2. Darwin's finches are interfertile.

C. Therefore, no speciation occurred in Darwin's finches.

(II)

P1. Speciation is non-interfertility with existent species but also not.

P2. Darwin's finches have speciated.

P3. Darwin's finches are interfertile.

P4. Hybridization is interbreeding between separate species.

C. Therefore, Darwin's finches hybridize as separate species.

(III)

P1. Speciation is non-interfertility with existent species.

P2. Darwins finches are non-interfertile.

C. Therefore, speciation occurred in Darwin's finches.

- As you can notice, the first argument is a sound & valid argument, it is also the actual reality. The second argument is not sound thus invalid, yet it's the one evolutionationists promote. The third argument is sound, but invalid, for it does not correspond to reality. It's a lie, & yet it's the one they teach kids at school to indoctrinate them into this believing this farce of a joke.

What do you mean justifying a formal cause with a final cause?

- It's like me asking you, what caused the apple to split? & you answering because I want to eat it. That's evolution by natural selection in a nutshell.

Fossil records including dental, bone, cranium analysis.

Migration patterns.

cross-genetic sequencing.

Observations of micro-evolution

- All circular mythos. Give me a single solid evidence. Just one.

So you’re a blank page when it comes to the origins of life? You don’t have any alternative views to evolution? Humans weren’t around forever.

- It doesn't matter. It's impossible to ascertain the origins of Life without understanding Life first. Any attempt to theorize on this is essentially an appeal to ignorance. The claim of evolution is basically: "I'm true because I haven't been proven false". What evolutionary theory is to Life is like what astrology is to the Cosmos. A giant conspiracy founded on a bunch of ad hoc anecdotes. As I said, maybe in 500 years. Maybe less, who knows!

Or the further he moves into the oblivion of nescience. Ignorance is bliss I guess. 

- Your entire thought process is contingent on a double god-of-the-gaps dilemma. On one hand, if I understand it, then God didn't do it; yet, if I don't understand it, then Evolution did it. Now that's a tough hateful cycle.

Evolution is a far more complex system than weather. 20+ years ago it was way more easier to track long term trends than to predict/model next weeks weather.

- Dude. Evolution is a concept in your head, a myth, an idea you assume to be true. What I'm talking about is the *THEORY* of Evolution, which is a claim about the origins of Life. We see the weather. We see clouds moving from A to B. We study their movement & figure out equations thereof. Evolution is not an observable fact, we do not see an ape turning into a human or a dog into a whale. Evolution is a theory, a claim, a conjecture, which also happens to be pure fantasy. 

What is the reality to you?

- Not evolution. The evolutionary narrative is the most outrageous donkiest amalgam of gibberish ever vomited by Mankind.

So you don’t think mutations are a part of the theory of evolution? 

- Make the argument. Don't dabble. Try your best to prove usefulness. Good luck.

Scientific theories explain how the world works. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains how evolution occurs. 

- Wut...?! Does everything you say have to be circular?! Since you seem to have some cognitive mishaps there, you need to see this:

P1. If Evolutionary Theory, then Evolution.

P2. Evolution.

C. Therefore, Evolution.

You don’t know what scientific theories are or how they are formed.

- We are back to scientific theories now? No more evolution is a fact?

‘Oh yeah you need to find a graviton before you can have a theory of gravity.’

- That's what you just said about evolution a couple lines ago: "theory of evolution by natural selection explains how evolution occurs."... Oops...

I’ve asked several times what your alternative views are and the closest you’ve come is, “Allah does what he pleases.”

- Yes. Allah does what He pleases. It's not up to us to decide what Allah pleases, all we can do is ascertain the creation & unravel its mysteries. The evolutionary mythology is still a bunch of drivel. 

Nice. I haven’t heard that one for the past 19 millionth time. 

And you say I project.

- This had a lot of potential... alas...

Voting on it would be like voting on a flat earth debate. I see no point. 

- Flat earth theory is worlds better than the evolutionary story. Do not be hard on yourself, even the best evolutionationists out there run from debate. They only debate young-earth creationists, because they get to use established Physical conclusions against them (such as nuclear decay). They got nothing else.

 You two should set up a debate regarding how probable it is that evolution via natural selection is true. 

- My proposition is: Evolutionary Theory is not scientific.

I would love to debate it, but yassine and I would have to agree on what evolution is, because I say that abiogenesis should not be included in the definition of evolution. 

- The evolutionary theory necessarily entails descent by natural selection and abiogenesis, wether you think it should be included in the definition or not. If A then B, means if not-B then not-A. No abiogenesis necessarily entails no evolutionary theory.

Animals just pop into existence and then they die in the course of 100s of millions of years to Yassine. 

Because “Allah does what he pleases.”  

- The fact that you HAVE to lie on every turn just exposes how flimsy your mythical beliefs are.  

There’s no reasoning with that. 

- Indeed, you live in delusions.

But you can try a popularity contest if you want 

- For lack of any argument or evidence, yes.

Yet your link did state the scholars adopted the basic idea of evolution from Aristotle, correct? You have to admit this was more than 1000 years after Aristotle’s time.

- We know what Aristotle said. We know what al-Jahiz & his successors said. They said different things, it's not a conspiracy. In fact, al-Jahiz often quotes Aristotle in his book al-Hayawan in derogatory tones -for instance in the case where he mocks Aristotle for suggesting the existence of double-headed snakes. This was before Greek philosophers gained prominence in the Muslim world, which came after al-Kindi's works, founder of the Falsafa school of thought (Islamic philosophy).

Are you a Young Earth Creationist?

- Look what we have here. You had to say that from loss of confidence in your arguments. Guess what, evolutionationsts are far more delusional than youngEarthcreationists. 

If you agree natural selection occurs, why do you have a problem with speciation?

- One is fact, the other is fiction. The most famous story of speciation that they taught us & still teach all over the world, is the tale of Darwin's finches & their "speciation". As it turns out, Darwin's finches are actually interfertile. No speciation ever occurred. Yet, the mythologists insist to telling this lie because frankly they got nothing! 

Depending on the organism, let’s say 100,000 generations, you think they’ll still be the same species from where their ancestors started?

- Dude. Your own DNA is copied & split in your own body into 100 trillion cells, each cell copying DNA & making some 50 million proteins, that's 5 billion trillion times (not just 100,000), & still the same effing DNA. Cyanobacteria has been going on since 3.5 billion years, that's more than 100 trillion generations. It's still cyanobacteria.

Apart from habitat and behavioural differences of not seeing each other as potential mates, there’s also chromosome and enzyme differences. Though i would agree a chimpanzee and a bonobo could create a hybrid, a gorilla and chimpanzee on the other hand, not so much.

When you say ALL apes are interfertile with each other, you’re simply wrong.

- Interfertile =/= interbreed. Amazon tribal people are interfertile with Inuit people even though they don't interbreed. If you're talking about the human-gorilla clad vs. human-chimpanzee clad theories, then nothing is conclusive as of yet. Studies have been done on gorilla "hybrids". But I will grant you this, whoever side of the argument wins, those flimsy trees will change yet again. lol! Regardless, if in the case of gorillas not being interfertile with other apes, then they are their own species, as is the case for gibbons. All this is entirely besides the point, which is morphology =/= descent. Wolves, coyotes, dogs... are all interfertile, yet they look so different. In effect, these are all the same kind, the same species, in different races.  

Do you understand that gene mutations occur? 

https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Mutation

- Lmao! Have you ever taken a class in biology! All mutations are bad news. Have you heard of cancer? The abusively called snips or variants are not actually mutations in the evolutionary sense. All these discussions show a deep lack of knowledge in molecular biology & the function of the cell.

I suppose you’re getting that information from your Imam.

- This amount of deliriousness is getting more & more exciting. I'm quite sure you haven't read the publications on this, otherwise you wouldn't have sent me this nonsense. But I'll make it simple. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378111904006705

- One, they use programs like Blast or Blat, which function based on a mathematical model of successive mutations (like Dayhoff model), to map out divergence in code distribution in given DNAs from a reconstructed reference DNA. Basically, they assume evolution is true & that a high number of mutations happened, then based on this assumption they conjure an imaginary "original" DNA code, then they check their DNAs against this imaginary one to note supposed deletions & insertions & substitutions...etc. After that, the popular science turns "evolution is true, therefore DNA is similar" to "DNA is similar, therefore evolution is true". & boom! 

- Two, the *actual* similarity between human DNA & chimp DNA is around 70%, at best. Using the aforementioned programs, they determined that 75% of human DNA code is most congruent with 82% of chimp DNA code; so they discarded the rest (basically 30%), then discarded any insertion or deletion (some 3%), to claim a 1-2% difference in DNA... Isn't his the most hilariously pathetic story!? It's so cringe I know! 

- Three, & this is really funny, the cosmic stupidity that we just witnessed can, in fact, be applied to absolutely any computer binary code & will give similar results. Take any two computer codes (0s & 1s), of a book or a program or an image. Then compare them with the assumption that they descent from the same parent code. Then eliminate the incongruent parts, you will inevitably end up with a very tiny difference -around 1%. In fact, this is -probabilistically speaking- a necessity, for the average 0-1 ratio in any uncompressed code is about 50-50%. I've done this myself btw. Here is an exercise, take any two -fairly large- texts of similar size, one in Chinese & the other in English, convert them to binary, then compare them. You'll get something around 70% similarity.

- Four, & this one is interesting. In retrospect, other camps among these evolutionationists are estimating similar ranges for other animals instead, namely gorillas & rats, away from chimpanzees. In truth, you can do the same for any mammal, for their genome size are around the 3 gigabases. You just need to tweak the algorithm a little bit, & boom the elephant is 99% human. 

- Finally, similarity in DNA code means absolutely nothing, the same way similarity between two binary codes mean nothing. It's not about the binary sequence, it's about the meaning of that sequence, aka words & sentences. In DNA case, these are instructions, aka genes, to make proteins. Proteins are basically workers with specific tasks in the cell; billions of types of proteins are produced by the human body, making on average trillions of each. Proteins are constructed from gene instructions; some genes can engender thousands of different proteins. Comparing chimp proteins with human proteins we can infer the information in the genes, that 80% of proteins are different between these two species. This is analogous to comparing two source codes, not based on some binary code similarity, but rather based on the actual instructions in the codes.

They just send me back to the main page. Although some information rings a bell such as Aristotle having developed evolutionary ideas. Didn’t know Muslim scholars adopted/adapted it from him hundreds of years after though.

- No. Aristotles' ideas were primitive & dumb, & have to do with Greek mythologies about fire & water & that stuff. The Mu'tazilites approach to Life was naturalistic, as they were themselves naturalists (although Muslim believers), hence their explanations of processes such as: natural selection, adaptive traits, survival of the fittest, camouflage, prey & predator, & among some evolution by increasing complexity. 

I’m not even sure you’ve read your own links.

- You're projecting.

- Much of that was pure narrative, nothing scientific. Use your words & make your case. "Here is a link, therefore it's true" is not a valid argument.

You did the same. Again, what’s the point of giving each other links?

- False. I shared an information, you asked for a source. I didn't ask for links, I've read enough. I asked for an argument, a proof, a piece evidence, anything which proves Evolution. How hard can it be?

Did you only read the title? Why should I bother to respond?

- You're projecting again. I know exactly what the study is about, it's nothing new. Natural selection within a population has nothing to do with the theory of Evolution. The claim of the evolutionary theory goes far beyond just natural selection. "natural selection happens, therefore evolution happens" is a composition fallacy. Seriously, how hard can this be?!

Why does it feel like you’re only reading the titles?

- Because you're projecting.

You’re saying all apes are the same species so they can all create hybrids with another? What you’re saying is blatantly wrong on so many levels.

- False. If you define a distinct species as a taxon whose individuals cannot interbreed with existing species -which is the actual definition of speciation-, then all apes are, by definition, the same species, for they can all interbreed. All apes have the same DNA, thus their offspring -being half of each parental DNA, is the same DNA. 

How closely related organisms are to one another doesn’t always translate to being interfertile. Take hares and rabbits as a classic example.  

- That's begging the question. I don't adhere to the evolutionary mythology, "closely related" means nothing to me. Zeus makes more sense than this nonsense. You have the same DNA as your parents reshuffled, their parents too, & theirs, ad infinitum. It's always the same human DNA (genome). A chimpanzee's DNA is ceded to their offspring reshuffled, & theirs, ad infinitum. A human genome shares 20% of the chimp's genes. At one point has this 80% extra gene (2.4 billion base pairs) suddenly appear in the DNA?!  They really take people for cretin imbeciles. You have to establish the truth of the theory first, before taking it for granted. Regardless, none of this doesn't change the fact that apes are inter-fertile. 

Here’s a link to an explanation of the taxonomical differences between species and genus: 

https://rangerplanet.com/difference-between-species-and-genus-simple-guide-examples/

- This is BS. "Two organisms from the same genus may produce fertile offsprings. But two organisms from two different genera cannot produce offsprings that are capable of reproduction. " is factually false, there is interbreeding on the order level, & the class level, let alone on the genera level -such as the case for moths & butterflies. You shocked? Yeah, there is actually no objective definition for any taxon. As the evolutionary biologist (aka mythologist) Prof Roger Butlin said: "We tend not to argue about what defines a species anymore, because that doesn't get you anywhere". Isn't that convenient.

“gene selection through reproductive potency” is essentially describing what gene selection theory is:

https://hilo.hawaii.edu/campuscenter/hohonu/volumes/documents/Vol07x23UnderstandingEvolution.pdf

https://course.oeru.org/ipsy103/learning-pathways/evolutionary-psychology/gene-selection-theory/

- No. I'm tired of explaining every other thing. For something you so wholeheartedly defend you don't seem to know a lot about. The very article you linked is case enough.

You don’t even click on the links and read them. I don’t even think you read your own. There’s no point to it other than it being a facade.

- What makes you YOU believe the evolutionary theory is undeniable fact? Show me THAT. 

• https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-and-natural-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution
  

• https://biologos.org/common-questions/what-is-the-evidence-for-evolution
  

Well I am starting to feel a headache coming on.

- Trying to wrap your hand around this nonsense.

There are many hypotheses to the origins of life. It does not mean the theory of evolution is wrong.

- Then we will go through everyone of these hypotheses & check. Give me your best. Regardless of the truth of evolution, the theory of evolution is still unscientific. There is a non-zero possibility that organisms morphed ones into others ("evolved" if you will) through an unknown processes. The theory of evolution stays forever nonetheless unscientific, ad hoc after the fact mythology.

You can pretty much say the same thing about star and planet formations. That gas and dust spontaneously compounds/collapses and creates chemical reactions, etc. But do you have any conjecture for them?

- My bachelor essay was on a similar topic. About how gravitation induces revolution of matter around a massive core, which compresses under gravitation force & transforms into heat, which -by energy conservation principals- forms spheroids. You can do all this with maths, to very accurate degrees. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is in its entirety ad hoc after the fact stories. 

I’ll put it simple for you. Knowing how to drive a car doesn’t require you to know how an engine works. But if your car breaks down, maybe it will inform you.

- That's a pharmacist. & besides the point.

- What does this have to do with Evolution? Which part of this is useful because of Evolution? 

Which part of knowing viruses mutate is useful because of evolution?

- Again, what does this have to do with the theory of evolution?! 

It’s like asking, ‘what’s useful about planets and stars forming because of gravity?’

- No it is not. One is an observable fact, the other is an imaginative mythology. Further, our understanding of planet formation stems from our understanding of gravitation. Our understanding of virus variants & similarities stems naught from evolutionary narratives. On the contrary, the evolutionary narrative can only hamper such understanding. 

Why bother?

- Because you know your position is untenable. 

May I see their scientific research papers/scribes or what have you?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312454840_An_untold_story_in_biology_the_historical_continuity_of_evolutionary_ideas_of_Muslim_scholars_from_the_8th_century_to_Darwin's_time

Coming from someone who’s wilfully ignorant

- Confessions!

Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0128-1

Over 100 references. 

- Much of that was pure narrative, nothing scientific. Use your words & make your case. "Here is a link, therefore it's true" is not a valid argument.

Evidence for evolution in response to natural selection in a contemporary human population

https://www.pnas.org/content/108/41/17040

about 50 references. 

- Equivocation fallacy. Conflating the actual theory of evolution with every change there is renders it wholly empty vacant. The Evolutionary Theory relates to origins of species through random mutations & arbitrary natural selection. Biological changes in a population is *not* Evolution. This proves further your inability to provide evidence for your mythology; you have to resort to tricks like this.

That evolution by natural selection is true and that you’re wilfully ignorant.

- Wild imagination you got there. 

Natural Selection in the Great Apes

https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/33/12/3268/2450105?login=true

about 100 references.

- Same sh*t as before. This is *not* Evolution. All apes are, in fact, inter-fertile. They are all, in effect, the same species, under the strictest definition of species. The same way all humans are inter-fertile.

- One, that's false. Two, the actual postulate of the theory itself has changed at least 5 times in that period, discarding old postulates with every new one; & the latest one is about to get the boot soon as well. It's not the same theory anymore when its formulation changes, even if under the same name. Three, *most* things that have been a scientific consensus at some point are not anymore. Finally, why are you talking like a religious person, "the priests said it". If you believe there are proofs & evidence for this, why can't you use you own words to prove it instead of "they said so".

You’re very bipolar in your replies. You put emphasis on the importance of postulates and then you say they don’t matter when it comes to science.

- . A postulate is the claim of a scientific theory, which may prove to be more or less accurate, or outright false. In the aforementioned case, all previous postulates of natural selection, starting from survival of the fittest, through selection from adaptive traits, to gene selection theory, have been discarded, after having been professed to be the truth, to be replace by gene selection through reproductive potency. 

You tell me to give proofs and evidence in my own words while also telling me to give you research that supports my positions.

- Links =/= arguments. You can not have a debate with someone with a bunch of links. Research is supportive source to your argument.

Make up your mind. 

- The evolutionationists are confusing you.

Can you give me a coherent explanation? 

- The theory of Evolution, which postulates the following: "Life emerged from spontaneous & compounded chemical reactions, to form a self-sustaining & self-reproducing single-cell organism, capable of gradual changes in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms of increasing complexity, giving rise to all biodiversity on Earth through descent of varying species from a common ancestor via undirected mechanisms, such as natural selection, random mutations, genetic drift, migration & gene flow".  Is:

1. Unverified: it has never been tested to be true or not. All of its applications are ad hoc interpretations after the fact, based on circular reasoning & infinite monkey fallacies.

2. Unpredictive: does not predict a single thing whatsoever. It's all conjecture after the fact.

3. Non-accurate: it's too vague & empty to be subject to any measure of accuracy. It's a hallow nimbus. Basically, Evolution is to Life, what Astrology is the Cosmos. 

- You have it backwards. I said: "Our understanding of biology stems from our understanding of chemistry, which stems from our understanding of physics, which stems from our understanding of quantum theory." to which you responded: "No, our understanding doesn’t."... Case in point.

And I said: “No, our understanding doesn’t. They may inform each other to one degree or another. But our understanding of everything else doesn’t derive from our understanding of quantum mechanics if that’s what you’re referring to.”

Which you replied: “it strictly does.”

It’s like saying general relativity is strictly derived from quantum theory. Do you understand the big picture?

- False. Strictly speaking, our understanding of Chemistry stems from our understanding of Quantum Theory, without which we will effectively be back to 19th century Chemistry. Quantum Theory gives us an understanding of the behavior of electrons & photons, which allows us a deeper understanding of interactions between atoms. Without this understanding, modern Chemistry is naught. Without knowing what an electron does & why it does what it does, our understanding of chemical reactions & organic synthesis & materials will be effectively primitive.

Virus mutation and the prevalence during various periods of Earth’s climate. 

- What does this have to do with Evolution? Which part of this is useful because of Evolution? 

“Different species have different DNAs.” Everyone/creature has a unique genome which expresses itself differently. 

Most of this stuff is just truism. Can you give some context?

- You thought they did DNA tests for monkeys to check for ancestry, I explained that's not the case. 

There’s nothing to debate. 

- You're conceding that the evolutionary theory is literature?

- Showing that the postulate of the Evolutionary Theory is actually scientific. In fact, let's have a debate about

The postulate of any scientific theory is not science on its own. What other ones do you have?

- Wut...?! Is that a concession I'm seeing?

Maybe from your hallucinatory strawman. 

- If not a concession, then a debate,

Natural selection has been scientific consensus for about 100 years.

- False. Rather, for about 1200 years. Natural selection is an observable fact. Evolutionary descent of varying species from a common ancestor via natural selection, however, is not.

It’s not worth it. 

- No. It's not within your ability.

I’m unable to give you research which supports evolution? 

You’re a real bright one aren’t you.

- Give me one argument that supports evolution, just one. I'm not asking for much.

Doctrine is belief, while evolution is fact.

- Evolution is a doctrine to you though. If you had proof for the truth of evolutionary theory you've have already brought it. 

Ignorant people don’t offend me. Maybe if you knew more about evolution than me I’ll get offended. 

- It's tough when you don't know enough about a subject to think you know.

I just need to understand your positions first. 

- Do you understand yours?

What would be the point?

- So you'd rather waste your time dodging back & forth instead of showing proof to support your case.

Evolution by natural selection has been a scientific consensus for about 100 years.

- One, that's false. Two, the actual postulate of the theory itself has changed at least 5 times in that period, discarding old postulates with every new one; & the latest one is about to get the boot soon as well. It's not the same theory anymore when its formulation changes, even if under the same name. Three, *most* things that have been a scientific consensus at some point are not anymore. Finally, why are you talking like a religious person, "the priests said it". If you believe there are proofs & evidence for this, why can't you use you own words to prove it instead of "they said so".

- Evolutionary theory is unverified, predicts nothing & is has no accuracy.

“Maybe in 500 years we'll have a quantum theory of biology.“ 

That’s why. These ideas must be too big for me. Please explain what you mean. 

- Our understanding of biology stems from our understanding of chemistry, which stems from our understanding of physics, which stems from our understanding of quantum theory.

No, our understanding doesn’t. They may inform each other to one degree or another. But our understanding of everything else doesn’t derive from our understanding of quantum mechanics if that’s what you’re referring to.

- It strictly does. You don't know what I'm talking about that's why you don't understand me. Go ask a chemist. You can not have Molecular Biology without Chemistry. You can not have Chemistry without Quantum Physics. Else, these disciplines will shrink back to 19th century level. This applies to engineering as well, you can not have Material Science or Computer Science... without Quantum Physics.

You don’t need to be a quantum physicist to be a chemist. Seriously!..

- Um...? Chemistry rests wholly on a Physics foundation & builds up on results from quantum theory, particle physics, electromagnetism, thermodynamics...etc.

Which various chemists will know to one degree or another. 

- Case in point.

You had no case. It isn’t a strict rule for chemists to understand quantum physics. 

- No. But the field of Chemistry rests on Quantum foundations.

Alright so you’ve moved from the profession(s) of chemistry to the field of chemistry in general.

- You have it backwards. I said: "Our understanding of biology stems from our understanding of chemistry, which stems from our understanding of physics, which stems from our understanding of quantum theory." to which you responded: "No, our understanding doesn’t."... Case in point.

It gave us a true understanding of the world and a framework which lets us fight diseases. 

- That's false. Show me one single way or one single example Evolution helps us fight diseases, such that without it we wouldn't have been able to. The floor is yours.

How do they do it?

- Different species have different DNAs. DNA sequencing is used to determine the base pairs of the genome. Genome size can vary a lot between species, up to 200 times the size of the human genome (3 billion). The genome is sequenced into chapters, sentences & words, to determine genes, particularly protein genes (from coding DNA). Each gene can be copied to create various types of proteins responsible for different functions in the cell. The way DNA tests work is they check for snips (SNP) in the DNA sequence, which are known variants, to determine a person's hereditary traits. These variants, however, occupy a very tiny part of DNA (the order of 0.01%), the rest is identical. It's expected to see 1/2 of DNA from each parent, so when the tested DNA (of that 0.01%) alines with the reference sample, they know it's a match. The further back you go in lineage, the more recombinations are expected (within that 0.01%).

- This is impossible to do with different species, for they have different DNA. After DNA sequencing, the comparison of DNA from a human & another species works by juxtaposing the two together, contrasting the similar parts & discarding the rest. Between a human & a chimp for, for instance, 30% of the DNA are incomparable. Then comes the phase of comparing genes, especially protein coding genes, to figure out the difference in functionality between a human cell & another species's. 

What do you mean?

- Let's debate this & you can show everyone I'm wrong.

What is the real science? 

- Not evolutionary mythology.

- Showing that the postulate of the Evolutionary Theory is actually scientific. In fact, let's have a debate about

The postulate of any scientific theory is not science on its own. What other ones do you have?

- Wut...?! Is that a concession I'm seeing?

This is basic knowledge. This should be an axiomatic concept in the modern world. 

It’s like talking to a Flat Earther.

- Huh... it's axiomatic, I didn't even know! You're very funny... Who told you that? Or did you invent this on your own?

We’re more closely related to other apes than monkeys but yeah modern monkeys are distant cousins in the primate family.

- Blahblahblah... you got proof?

I’m treating you how I would treat a Flat Earther. You’re not special.

- Wow! Smoking gun argument right here boys! This is merely a display of your absolute inability to produce any proof or evidence whatsoever.

It’s not worth the try.

- Because you're unable to.

’others’ work who also know evolution has and does occur.

- Wishful thinking much!

They’re claims to you.

- & doctrines to you, yes.

Yes, because you’re the arbiter of what’s true. Get off your over-inflated high horse.

- You get off your high unicorn. Do you expect others to believe you just because you say so?! You claim Evolution to be a fact when you can't even produce proof for the case, then you get offended because people don't believe you!!!  

Like I said, this isn’t an argument.

- You're right it isn't. Still waiting for one though.

I don’t have expertise in anything. Go back, read what you said, and then read the link.

- Case in point.

Like I said, willful ignorance is a challenge. And I’m trying to better understand.

- Why are you wasting your time dodging & eluding, when you can just provide a single proof for evolution & be done with it.

You keep on denying fact and you say “they” are lying to me. Who exactly? The Jews?

- I assume you got this false information you imagine to be fact from somewhere, 'they' = your sources. Unless you invented this yourself. 

Evade what?

- Actually providing proof. Why don't we have a debate about this? You can show everyone all the axiomatic facts.

“An observable fact is not Science.” So you don’t believe science?

- An observable fact is not Science. Science is the study of observable facts to reveal explanations thereof.

How is it unscientific? Are you saying it’s factual?

- Clever! Unscientific as in, not the following: 'plausible, simple, verifiable, falsifiable, consistent & accurate', which it obviously isn't.

You had no case. It isn’t a strict rule for chemists to understand quantum physics.

- No. But the field of Chemistry rests on Quantum foundations. 

Modern humans have only been around for about 300,000 years. Do the math. 

- I don't see the part where the Theory of Evolution made useful contributions? So much back & forth & you can't find one useful thing the theory of Evolution brought us!

Again, it would probably help if you say Allah did it.

- Is this your new 'get out of evidence free' card trick?

For wilfully ignorant Muslims.

- Glad you're admitting that.

“Ludicrous” things that contradict your Islamic beliefs? Why are they ludicrous but also not nonsense?

- Not even nonsense = when you can't qualify the nonsensicalness of something for being too senseless. You seem to imagine that they take DNA samples from jellyfish & elephants & monkeys & conduct genealogical DNA tests to figure out the ancestry like 23andMe right? Yeah, that's not a thing! 

hmmmm nah, I still doubt it.

- Your inability to produce proof is because of your fear that I may not believe in Evolution...? Isn't that just so convenient!

Just imagine them as distant cousins and that Allah did it.

- I leave the imagination part to the evolutionationists. I'll stick with real science.

Good luck with what?

- Showing that the postulate of the Evolutionary Theory is actually scientific. In fact, let's have a debate about this.

By autocorrect I meant science has internal mechanisms that corrects itself; It doesn’t require corrections from the outside. 

But you would probably disagree with you being a strident Muslim. 

- Dunning-Kruger at its best.

You keep bringing up imaginary friends. Is that some sort of preemptive defence mechanism? 

- I'm not your therapist...

You’re assuming it’s wrong.

- No, actually, you are, & then aren't. A world of contradiction...

 

I keep on telling you we’re genetically related to our ancestors. All animals today have a common ancestor. 

- No we are not. You can't be serious... LMAO!

When you have a blood test and it shows you’re related to your family, do you just say that’s a scientific narrative?

- So you did a DNA sampling with a monkey & got a match?

It’s always good to challenge yourself. Willful ignorance is like a puzzle you have to try to work out. 

- That's a great advice you should take. Still does not save the evolutionationists from their cowardice. I feel so much excitement every time I argue with a flat-earther or any of the types challenging Physics because I'm confident I will destroy their fantasies. Evolutionationists are simply not confident they could do the same, that's why they run away.

Alright alright, calm down.

- Still won't help your case.

What do you consider a contribution to scientific understanding? 

- A scientific discovery that fulfills a society's needs, improve a person's wellbeing, drive a company's profits, or increase our understanding of the world. What evolutionationists do is advance their biases & leech off other's works.

- Anything that conforms to your Islamic beliefs?

- It's so funny how abysmal your attempts of evasion are. Quite typical. Is this what they taught you? When in trouble, use religion... This is not going to save your claims any one bit.

Okay, Allah designed it so you can put earrings through it. Happy?

- I'm happy alright, about your absolute inability to defend your case. If they made you the apostle for Evolution, even Dawkins will abandon it. LMAO!

As far as I can see ‘founding ancestor’ is a non-evolutionary term that refers to human lineages.

- You have absolutely no freaking clue what I'm talking about or what you yourself are talking about. It's becoming increasingly obvious that your understanding of Evolutionary theory is of quantum proportions! Go educate yourself at least a little bit on a subject before you attempt an argument.

Did you even read it? And yes, I already knew about the replication crises, but come on, either you know squat, or you’re purposefully being disingenuous.

- What is your expertise? You don't seem to be the least bit familiar with research culture.

The Abrahamic God gives value to humans above the environment which humans are the centre of. It’s hard when you’re a devout person of faith and a biologist crushes your world view.

- If this is your best defense for the evolutionary mythology you so fanatically believe in, then even I feel like a bully now. Pathetic!

I doubt you would cede your case.

- Error 404 evidence not found...

Okay I’ll tell you in common sense talk. YOU. ARE. GENETICALLY. RELATED. TO. YOUR. ANCESTORS. WHICH. GO. BACK. MILLIONS. OF. YEARS. DNA can last up to 6.8 million years FYI. Far longer than modern humans have been around.

- HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!!! You cracked me up so hard! Yeah, NO. YOU. ARE. NOT... First of all, you have yet to produce a single piece of evidence for the claims of evolutionary theory. I'm still waiting. Second of all, I hate to break it to you, but your ideas about Evolution are... how to say it... fictitious. I don't know what you been reading, but they be lyin to ya. There is no such thing, like not at all. 

If it helps you cope; Allah did evolution. 

- In the imaginations of evolutionationists, of course.

I’m just trying to understand you.

- 'Evade' is the word you're looking for.

Has any of your work been peer reviewed. May I see?

- I tell you I did not do research & you ask for publications!? I want to eventually go back to university & finish some work I started. I have some math related projects in mind I want to publish. For now, it's freelance.

Because we don’t see fish turning into humans?

- If that, then it's an observation. Observation =/= theory. An observable fact is not Science. It's just a fact.

You can say Allah did evolution can’t you?

- I just noticed, you speak about this 'evolution' as if it is an observable fact, it's not. It's a theory, the Evolutionary Theory, albeit unscientific.

Which various chemists will know to one degree or another. 

- Case in point.  

It’s not a narrative. We have genetic data today and genetic data going back millions of years. 

- What does this have to do with Evolution?! Genetics =/= Evolution. Clearly, you don't know anything about this. Evolution is just a story, a parasite story. You have yet to show me one single useful thing thanks to Evolution. 

Again, it would probably help if you say Allah did it.

- Is this your new 'get out of evidence free' card trick?

Maybe if you genetically test them.

- I don't blame you, I blame the education system. You are saying ludicrous things that are not even nonsense.

Do you mean by giving links? Because I don’t have bones/genetic samples with papers on hand to send you.

- Have at it. I'm waiting. Do your best. & I promise, if you bring me proof, I'm your believer.

Why do you conveniently miss out on responding to being related to other animals?

- Dude, what the f are you even talking about!! So embarrassing! They have so easy, people are indeed amazingly gullible.

No, I can’t show you an animal turning into another animal. 

- Reminder, the Evolutionary Theory postulates the following: ""Life emerged from spontaneous & compounded chemical reactions, to form a self-sustaining & self-reproducing single-cell organism, capable of gradual changes in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms of increasing complexity, giving rise to all biodiversity on Earth through descent of varying species from a common ancestor via undirected mechanisms, such as natural selection, random mutations, genetic drift, migration & gene flow". Request: provide a single evidence which makes this aforementioned postulate a scientific one, particularly, show that it is: verifiable (fits all the facts), falsifiable (predicts new facts), & accurate (with low margin of error). Good luck!

When you said science correcting itself means I’ve already lost the argument, you did not think that through in the slightest.

- Indeed, you have. "autocorrect" is a slogan that doesn't mean anything, & if true then it's self-defeating. If Science is "autocorrecting" then any scientific finding is thereby incorrect. Though, the scientific process is indeed based on trial & error.

It’s essentially like talking to a child. And there you go again.

- More imaginary friends?

- But you know evolution is true? Or you don't know?

I know it’s true.

- Whatever happened to that "science autocorrects itself"? Or does that stop at Evolution?

Does that mean evolution in its entirety is wrong? Yes, with strong enough counter evidence which most likely we’ll never find. 

- LMAO! There is zero evidence for Evolution; fetch those first before you celebrate. 

We must look to different people/sources for our knowledge then.

- Yes, indeed. The evolutionationists do not even allow debate or participate in it. They are afraid to be exposed. When you see physicists & astronomers full of excitement to debate anyone & everyone who questions their findings, the evolutionationists run away with tails between their legs under the pretext of "we don't debate ignorants" LMAO! 

So when it comes to science we shouldn’t be curious? Is science like murdering someone? Perhaps your belief in Allah?

- Red herring. When you can't support your claims, you resort to distractions. Whatever else you say about everything else in the world will not add to the truth of evolutionation narrative one iota. 

He’s been an outspoken atheist and science populariser for the most part in the last decade or so. You’re pretty much just tone policing. Science popularising is not science, though Dawkins has contributed his fair share of science in his earlier years. 

- A fair share in the evolutionation mythology, indeed. He contributed nothing to actual Science, just the opposite. 

And as for vestigial evolutionary remnants, some are obvious such as earlobes.

- What did I say! They made you think like they do. If you don't know the function, then it's "vestigial", as if that means anything at all. Evolution god of the gaps, if you don't know what it is, then it's evolution. Amusing! 

Can you tell me how?

- For instance. Human gene comparisons show closest similarity in RNA sequencing in elephants & farthest in rats; whereas the opposite is regarded in traditional phylogenies. Of course all based on the imaginary assumption: "similar = related". LOL! Since they can't reconcile this & that, they resorted to inventing new names... 'founding ancestor' instead of 'common ancestor'. Isn't this hilarious!

- Huh? Outside the serious sciences (Physics are the gang), the overwhelming majority of publications are erroneous & irreproducible. In Evolutionary biology, the rate is close to 100%.

Can you link me some things so I have a better understanding?

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

- (You're*). Of engineering*. Biology had nothing to do with it, neither did evolutionation. It's called Physics. The most infuriating & comical thing about Science today is that the dumbest "findings" in phycology & biology (such as evolution) live under the same umbrella of 'Science' as things like Gravitation Theory & Quantum Theory, leeching off their reputation. In the traditional Islamic classification of knowledge, physical sciences such as astronomy(hay'a), mechanics (hayl), gravitation (thaqala), or engineering (mimar) were classified alongside arithmetics (hisab) algebra (jabr), & geometry (handasa), under Mathematics (Ryadyat); whereas biological sciences & medicine were classified under Natural Sciences (Tabi'yat). If we take out Physics & put it back in the Mathematics department, we'll finally have Natural Sciences right where they belong. 

Just in physics/astronomy the world doesn’t revolve around Earth, in biology the world doesn’t revolve around humans. 

- What does this have to do with anything?!

So now you’ve moved the focus to “care” too. Childish.

Care: serious attention or consideration applied to doing something correctly or to avoid damage or risk.

You ask why the convolutions. I’m just giving you definitions. What are you doing?

- Another red herring. 

I agree. I don’t know how that disputes what I said. 

- I did my part. The rest is up to you.

- I'm all ears. Why are you wasting your time arguing concepts, when you can instead provide much needed proof for Evolution here & now. Bring me proof that confirms the scientific rigorousness of this theory, & I will cede your case.

I doubt it.

- You doubt your ability to bring proof? Or is that a concession that you can't bring proof?