Evolution

[ibmw22]

When you here the word "evolution" what do you say in your head? "God" will send me to hell if if I don't except his ways/ or, do you believe in evolution? Well, if you don't want to learn about evolution, I wouldn't suggest you read on.

To start, i'll educate you guys with the basics:
The first man to actually write about evolution (that we know of) was Charles Darwin. Now, of course there have been other thoughts of evolution ranging back to the Greek times but, he was the first to write about it. In 1831 Darwin sailed to the Galapagos in a boat named the HMS beagle. The captain was Robert Fitzroy ( a descendant of king charles ll) Darwin was only 20 when he departed for the Galapagos and he published his theory of evolution 30 years later.

This is how evolution works: Lets say this is an animal organism= (+)
Now, what if a larger organism came
along and they mated. The baby that animal organism produces has a chance of being larger than its parents (when the baby reaches full maturaty) now what would happen is over millions and millions of years of bigger organisms mating with other bigger organisms, an organism of larger size is formed= / \
l + l
\_____/

Now that was the basic explaining. I would be happy to answer any more questions of evolution. Feel free to ask anything related to the topic.

[ibmw22]

Sorry the large organism came out wrong.

[Core Entropy]

Originally Posted by ibmw22

When you here the word "evolution" what do you say in your head? "God" will send me to hell if if I don't except his ways/ or, do you believe in evolution? Well, if you don't want to learn about evolution, I wouldn't suggest you read on.

I believe that God part is one-sided right there. God will not send you to hell for you ideas only if you do not put your faith and trust in him and believe that jesus died for our sins and try to walk his way. For all i know God could have started Evolution with a population and put it in hidden words in the bible.

Now with the Evolution Part.

Evolution will never be proved. The ONLY skeleton of a caveman found was discovered to be a fake, upon inspection a scientist noticed that there was three small pieces of plaster jutting out the jaw and the forehead. That scientist is under protection now because the other scientists want him dead for his discovery of the cover up. The sense behind it makes NO sense there is no possible way that an entire civilization can go from retarded apes to matured upright humans in just a few hundred, even thousand years.

[ibmw22]

lol. Evolution has already been proved by comparing the genes of a chimpanzy with those of a human. Evolution is basically the way that a living organism evolves to survive the area around him.

[ibmw22]

And another thing. It wasn't a couple thousand years. Its was a couple billion years.
The fake skull of a god damn caveman has nothing to do with evolution as there is no proof caveman exsisted. So i'm guessing that if you don't believe that there is a logical explanation to the unsudden appearance of human beings, you must believe that Adam and Eve were real? Bullsit. Even if you believe that "god" created single celled organisms that evolved from there, why don't you think he just made the god damn human race to start out with?

[ibmw22]

And another thing. It wasn't a couple thousand years. Its was a couple billion years.
The fake skull of a god damn caveman has nothing to do with evolution as there is no proof caveman exsisted. So i'm guessing that if you don't believe that there is a logical explanation to the unsudden appearance of human beings, you must believe that Adam and Eve were real? Bullsit. Even if you believe that "god" created single celled organisms that evolved from there, why don't you think he just made the god damn human race to start out with? And remember that I said if you do not want to learn about evolution I suggest you don't read on? Who the hells the stupid ape now?

[DeathToSociety]

ibmw22: It wasn't over billions of years, earth has only been around for 4 billion years. You have the right idea although you're missing some major points.

Core Entropy: I find it ironic that someone who believes in god is talking about "proof".
Homo Sapiens didn't evolve from retarded apes, I'm guessing you watched that South Park episode about evolution.
Look at this table as you can see they have found fossils of "missing links" between humans and apes.

Originally Posted by Core Entropy

The sense behind it makes NO sense there is no possible way that an entire civilization can go from retarded apes to matured upright humans in just a few hundred, even thousand years.

And of course you would know, of all people, since you're so qualified on this subject. Maybe you should do some research before you start talking out of your ass.

You wan't more evidence? Here you go.

Now lets see how much proof you can come up with that god is real.

Edit - sorry for being such a dick in that post

[sacrednines]

This is my specialized area of study, emergence and evolutionary physiology to be more specific. I reserved my two cents (well, much more than two cents worth considering the lack of brevity here) because, prior to "DeathtoSociety"s post, it was a rather elementary debate. I can't believe its still a subject of debate actually. That being said, I have to agree (logic permits me) with what "DeathtoSociety" mentioned.

Originally Posted by Core Entropy

For all i know God could have started Evolution with a population and put it in hidden words in the bible.

I've know plenty of creationists who accept the fact of evolution... only they justify their religious beliefs with the idea that evolution is "guided" by a personal god. And that life's beginning (a feverishly debated topic) could not have come about without a "thoughtful creator's kick-start". This is, of course, better understood as 'not the deliberate action of a conscious god-mind', but as a fundamental mechanism of a complex, unconscious universe... Instead of trying to interpret secular science to fit the bible, try interpreting the bible to fit secular science...

A little less than a year ago mineral researchers found that highly compressed clay (like the pressure caused by sub-terrestrial plate tectonics) has an astonishing consequence... It forms and sustains RNA, the known predecessor to DNA... which is the fundamental structure of life... not to mention that bio-chemistry knows the essential chemical ingredients for life are Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen. Life is a mechanism, much like any other mechanism inherent in this universe. Its much more appropriate, and still reverent, to interpret the genesis story (like all religion) as figurative parables teaching moral or pantheistic ideas. This perspective maintains the truth (Adam/original biology -- coming forth from dust/clay and Eve/sexual counter-gender organisms -- coming from Adam -- see cambrian era reproductive explosion) while dismissing the human-centric elaborations.

Originally Posted by Core Entropy

The sense behind it makes NO sense there is no possible way that an entire civilization can go from retarded apes to matured upright humans in just a few hundred, even thousand years.

Yes way. Do research... A time line of "our" emergence.
10-15 billions years ago.........The universe is born.
1 second later.....................Electrons and anti-electrons (positrons) collide leaving mostly electrons.
1 minute later......................Neurons and protons coalesce and from elements such as helium, lithium, and hydrogen.
300,000 years later..............the first atoms form.
1 billion years later...............Galaxies form.
3 billion years later...............Matter within the galaxies forms distinct stars and solar systems.
5-10 billion years after the big bang, or about 5 billion years ago........The earth is born.
1.7 billion years ago..............Simple DNA evolves.
700 million years ago.............Multi cellular plants and animals appear.
570 million years ago.............The Cambrian explosion occurs: the emergence of diverse body plants, including the appearance of hard-bodied animals -- a result of the evolution of sexual reproduction.
400 million years ago.............Land based plants evolve.
200 million years ago.............Dinosaurs and mammals begin sharing the environment.
65 million years ago..............Dinosaurs go extinct, leaving the mammals a safer environment to develop and evolve.
50 million years ago..............The anthropoid suborder of primates splits off.
30 million years ago..............Advanced primates such as monkeys and apes appear.
15 million years ago..............The first humanoids appear. My socio-biology professor is born, ha.
5 million years ago................Humanoid creatures are walking on two legs. Homo-habilis is using tools.
2 million years ago................Homo-erectus has domesticated fire and is using language and weapons.
500,000 years ago................Homo-sapiens emerge distinguished by the ability to create technology.
100,000 years ago................Homo-sapiens-neanderthalensis emerges.
90,000 years ago..................Homo-sapiens-sapiens (our immediate ancestors) emerge.
40,000 years ago..................The Homo-sapiens-sapeins subspecies is the only surviving humanoid subspecies on earth.
10,000 years ago..................The era of technology begins with the agricultural revolution.

...Now the oldest known evidence for "civilization" is about 9,000 years old, with the first cities in Mesopotamia and India. And the rest is recorded history... I personally am proud of this heritage. It shows that we as humans fundamentally belong here, as opposed to the idea that we are thrown in here from somewhere else. To say we are the direct progeny of some deity is idolatry of the human race in my opinion. I find it much more wonderful that we are as much a part of the universe as super-galaxies. Evolution is not merely a biological mechanism, but a universal one, as primordial and epic as anything conceivable. But, as a Pantheist, I can respect the conventional, classic Monastic idea of creation... but its either an originally figurative one, or an outright lie.

As "DeathToSociety" said, the ball is in your court to convey the possibility of a god-mind... but I take that back, as it would inevitably change the discussion into a fruitless, futile, faith-based debate, which defeats the point of a debate... seeing as how faith does not require or facilitate objective evidence. So let's keep it on evolution.

I mean no disrespect to either of you (imbw22 & Core Entropy) when I say, each would be better equipped to argue their points had they more supportive evidence, and a general understanding of the customs of conventional discourse (it just makes debate easier -- with the aim of achieving better, more intellectual conclusions).

[ANARCHYisKING]

evolution is false propaganda. i saw a picture in TIME magazine(May of 2003) of a skeleton that was like 5,000 years old. the skeleton,once put together, looked like we do today. as a matter of fact they said this person could have walked down the streets of new york city today and fit right in. also, the human body is a perfectly designed machine. so someone had to of created it...

[DeathToSociety]

The human body is the way it is because the animals that eventually evolved humans were the strongest of their species and more able to adapt. The ones who were not perfect went extinct, hence the perfect body design we have.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by sacrednines

A little less than a year ago mineral researchers found that highly compressed clay (like the pressure caused by sub-terrestrial plate tectonics) has an astonishing consequence... It forms and sustains RNA, the known predecessor to DNA... which is the fundamental structure of life...

Can you post a reference for this? I'd be interested to read more.

The main reason I believe in evolution rather than a creator is because no matter how improbable evolution may be, the "god" concept is even less likely. Religious people point out (quite reasonably) that there are gaps in the fossil record, and that scientific research cannot adequately explain evolution (particularly how it all got started). When asked for their proof of god though, they simply say that he is too great/mysterious to understand. I believe it is unreasonable to criticise science for not explaining everything and at the same time put faith in something they say "is unexplainable".

Originally Posted by ANARCHYisKING

i saw a picture in TIME magazine(May of 2003) of a skeleton that was like 5,000 years old. the skeleton,once put together, looked like we do today. as a matter of fact they said this person could have walked down the streets of new york city today and fit right in.

That's because 5,000 years ago people were a lot like us. They just didn't have the same technology. Since most humans no longer live by "law of the jungle" there has been less effective natural selection to continue the process of evolution. If anything we are going backwards.

[DeathToSociety]

Originally Posted by ANARCHYisKING

evolution is false propaganda. i saw a picture in TIME magazine(May of 2003) of a skeleton that was like 5,000 years old. the skeleton,once put together, looked like we do today. as a matter of fact they said this person could have walked down the streets of new york city today and fit right in.

It sounds like that article has less to do with evolution than with the fact that people were around 5000 years ago, which everyone knew anyway.

I don't know what I can say to convince you people who think evolution is false so I'll just put it this way: When you work out you get strong, when you study you get smart. Strong people generally have strong kids and smart people generally have smart kids, that is essentially evolution.

[sacrednines]

Originally Posted by ANARCHYisKING

also, the human body is a perfectly designed machine. so someone had to of created it...

The human body is no where close to a perfect machine. The biological shortcomings, for which there is an almost unlimited source of examples, only proves the randomness of evolution. We are as perfect as we need to be for our environment... which is subject to constant change from the natural forces and processes inherent in the universe. If you define 'god' as the unconscious embodiment of the laws of the universe, or spell it n-a-t-u-r-e, then yes, "god" created life.

Originally Posted by ANARCHYisKING

evolution is false propaganda. i saw a picture in TIME magazine(May of 2003) of a skeleton that was like 5,000 years old.

Anyone who is educated knows that modern man has been around for well over five thousand years... look at the time line I posted, its not my opinion, its fact as defined by science. I highly doubt that you have the resources to launch a legitimate attempt at the disproof of evolution... Do you mean to succeed where the most well-versed theologians and highly groomed men of faith have failed? Science has a monopoly on the evidence for the true origins of life... and yours is a pseudo-challenge on the principal devices of logic and reason. I apologize, and let me stress again that I respect your religious beliefs, but it is your attempt at disproving evolution that I can not respect.

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Can you post a reference for this? I'd be interested to read more.

Here are the missing links, haha, pun intended...
Segment 1 -Clay-Catalyzed RNA Polymerization Activity : Segment 2 - Clay and the Origins of Life
This theory was replicated and proven only recently in the laboratory, but I heard about it in a lecture so I don't know where exactly to find the experiment's data online.

[The Guru]

We evolved from fish, not monkeys.....fish

There is a God but hes been kickin back for a while

[DeathToSociety]

We evolved directly from apes, yeah if you trace it back far enough you could say we evolved from fish, trace it back further and you could say we evolved from single cell organisms.

[ibmw22]

Okay people. Nice discussion. I'll post some more related subjects about evolution and Darwin on the philosophy & morals page. And religous people, stop acting like you know gods real just because you read it out of the god damn bible, never believe everything that you read.

[SUSEJ]

Learn about DNA, if your mom has brown eyes and your dad has brown eyes, the baby can have blue eyes, if someone in the family had blue eyes, even if it was 2000yrs ago.

+ + = can equal -
- - = can equal +
+ - = can equal 3 meaning something tottally diffrent like 4legs.

[headcase]

*Ahem*, genetics student.

While I would recommend reading all of this;

DNA & Complete Genetic Dominance: Traits of Simple Inheritance: Melanin (Eye Color) & Myopia

This is a key line;

We’re kind of cheating here. Eye color, as well as hair and skin color, is a complex trait. Not a case of simple inheritance. The main pigment is melanin, and the more melanin, the darker the color.

Not that I even understand the point you're trying to make.

[Draven]

OK I'm not a believer in Macro-Evolution (That sudden mutation creates new species), this what the theory of evolution disribes. So what proof of Macro-Evolution exists? What new races (species) have appeared on earth within the last 2000 years of recorded history?

Micro-Evolution; changes and adaptations within a give species that does not chnge the species is a proven fact. But, I have not heard from creditable sources that micro-evolution creats macro-evolution. So I'm asking what proof can the die hard evolutionists provide for me?

[Skelton]

I find it hard to believe that a single cell organism was created, able to survive and reproduce. What would this primitive organism eat? How would it be able to reproduce?

And how exactly did virus come into being, they aren't living, I don't believe they could have evolved from cells. It doesn't make any sense to me.

There may be answers for some of thees questions and I simply don't know them but thats why they are questions.

[DeathToSociety]

Originally Posted by Skelton

I find it hard to believe that a single cell organism was created, able to survive and reproduce. What would this primitive organism eat? How would it be able to reproduce?

I don't even know how to reply to this.
You show an enormous amount of ignorance, it is clear that you are either young and haven't been to a high school biology class yet, or you have and you just didn't pay attention.
Single celled organisms reproduce asexually
Microorganisms don't need to "eat" as you put it because they don't have stomachs to feed. But as for how they get energy, it all depends on what type of cell.

Animal cells get glucose from the animal eating food and digesting it.

Plant cells get glucose through a process called photosynthesis in which they make the glucose from water and carbon dioxide with energy from the sun.

And that's about as far as my Biology class took me.

I don't know how exactly these organisms got here so I'll quote sacrednines from this thread

Originally Posted by sacrednines

Within a billionth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of one second after the big bang the universe cooled enough for the first force to emerge, gravity or "the law of attraction". The subsequent laws followed after which. The right combination of early materials allowed for physics to create the first chemistry, later RNA formed from Carbon, Nitrogen, Hydrogen, ect. After a time it became DNA, the first biology was born. Biology has combined and progressed into conscious beings which, in the spirit of its predecessors, is making the next best device for storing and processing information, technology.

[Skelton]

RNA is usless, it alone cannot create a cell, it is only a tool of the cell. There would have to be a cell to utilze its potential.

You could say the single cell organism used photosynthesis, but it was created with chloroplasts? I cannot think of a cell that can survive without another organism to feed on or the use of the sun. Would it have used some kind of chemical compound created through non-biological processes.

[sacrednines]

Originally Posted by Skelton

RNA is usless, it alone cannot create a cell, it is only a tool of the cell. There would have to be a cell to utilze its potential.

I gave a very shorthand description of what is an enormous field of science. RNA does not create a cell... but its a step toward DNA, which is a big step toward life. RNA is the necessary predecessor for DNA, which is the necessary predecessor for cell life. There didn't come a day when a cell just popped into existence... calling it a lengthly process in an understatement. The chemical requirements and the environmental requirements for biology are abundant and naturally occurring... here.

Originally Posted by Skelton

You could say the single cell organism used photosynthesis, but it was created with chloroplasts? I cannot think of a cell that can survive without another organism to feed on or the use of the sun. Would it have used some kind of chemical compound created through non-biological processes.

Now you can't think of the cell because you are unaware. When a previously sealed cavern is chanced upon by development there are numerous exclusive organisms that live there... without sunlight. They are appropriately named "extremophiles", biological organisms that need very little to flourish. There are some in caves that feed off and break down the minerals, limestone is theorized to be the result of this. There are some that live at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, 315 degree sea floor sulfur vents, etcetera... In fact, every nook and cranny of this planet... however perceived uninhabitable, sustains some form of life... there is no sterile location. The only thing that separates earth from the other planets is the abundance of liquid water, and a stable gravity. We are in the "sweet spot" of the solar system.

It is more believable that some all powerful genie-god presides and creates everything, watching on, pulling strings, without a beginning or an end? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... evolution is not an extraordinary claim, but "god" is... the suspicious coincidence is that by definition and tradition "evidence" is not needed by those making this claim.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by sacrednines

It is more believable that some all powerful genie-god presides and creates everything, watching on, pulling strings, without a beginning or an end? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... evolution is not an extraordinary claim, but "god" is... the suspicious coincidence is that by definition and tradition "evidence" is not needed by those making this claim.

Evolution is a theory and like all theories it changes as evidense is proven or disproven. Again as I have said, there is also micro-evolution; changes within a life form to better addapt to survival. This is proven, a suntan is micro-evolution if you get down to it. But, macro-evolution mutations and changes within a life form that alters the life into a new life form is not proven. In over 2000 years of recorded history no one has recorded a species mutating into another species.

Now species biologically measure time in generations, and multiple generations can occur within weeks and in years depending on the animal's biological make up. No mouse, insect or laberatory animal has been bred into a new form of animal. So the idea of evolution, the mutation of a fish into an anphibian has never been substanciated. As far as the fossle record shows, no primate along the human evolutionary chart has existed in common territory with all others.

It is more plausible to believe in aliens, god(s) or that life is a natural process that evolves not from a single organism but on its own entirely.

Now I ask the same questions I asked before which no one has yet to answer to prove evolution exists. So what proof of Macro-Evolution exists? What new races (species) have appeared on earth within the last 2000 years of recorded history?

As for common genes we have common genes with planets, a banana has 50% of the same genetic material that we do. What I'm asking for is creatible proof in sudden changes to an animal that has turned it into a totally new animal such as a fish, becoming an anphibian, an anphibian becoming a lizard and a lizard beoming a bird as the theory of evolution would suggest and claims. Not fossles and theories of people who want to justifiy their own beliefs, but concrete biological proof. Since no such proof does exist we must either accept that the theory of evolution is more of a philosophy or that in truth we know nothing of human origions.

As is commonly stated here post some refferences...

[sacrednines]

Originally Posted by Draven

In over 2000 years of recorded history no one has recorded a species mutating into another species.

Because no one is 2000 years old, nor is the thirst for science 2000 years old, making it unlikely that anyone would have begun the experiment you are suggesting. Fossil records are proof enough.

Originally Posted by Draven

As far as the fossle record shows, no primate along the human evolutionary chart has existed in common territory with all others.

right, not all others, but with the evolutionary experimental species of the era... not alone until the domination of homo-sapien-sapien.

Originally Posted by Draven

It is more plausible to believe in aliens, god(s) or that life is a natural process that evolves not from a single organism but on its own entirely.

the latter... of course. But life did evolve from single celled organisms, that evolved from compressed clay polymerization, that resulted from the geographic processes of the plate tectonics, that are driven by gravities pull... Life is a process like any other in the universe, I don't understand why this seems less believable than a deity implanting us from somewhere else, at least there is a real sense of belonging to the universe with the idea of evolution.

Originally Posted by Draven

Now I ask the same questions I asked before which no one has yet to answer to prove evolution exists. So what proof of Macro-Evolution exists? What new races (species) have appeared on earth within the last 2000 years of recorded history?

No way to really exclusively tell, but humans -- a natural species like any other -- have sped up the process of evolution in some cases through the introduction of new species to new habitats... causing the alien species to adapt and go trough biological changes... effectively mimicking the changing climates of earth by bringing species to areas with different climates. There are a great many new plants that evolved from earlier variations as a direct result of being introduced into a new environment. As well as non-migratory birds, insects, and some larger feral mammals. Hawaii's now, but not once, indigenous species are a prime example of this. The biggest problem is that we are no where close to identifying all the species of this planet... there are hundreds and hundreds of new species discovered each year. This makes it hard to say something recently evolved when it could have just been previously undiscovered, but it the point remains that evolution is a continuing process... there's less evidence to suggest that the earth is a solid mass, yet no one seems to contest that... probably because it doesn't contradict their preconceived religious notions.

Originally Posted by Draven

What I'm asking for is creatible proof in sudden changes to an animal that has turned it into a totally new animal such as a fish, becoming an amphibian, an amphibian becoming a lizard and a lizard becoming a bird as the theory of evolution would suggest and claims. Not fossils and theories of people who want to justify their own beliefs, but concrete biological proof. Since no such proof does exist we must either accept that the theory of evolution is more of a philosophy or that in truth we know nothing of human origins.

I don't know how you were informed, but that's not at all how it works. There are subtle hints that reveal the subtle process, not a "sudden change" like you've described. Bird's have much anatomically in common with reptiles, amphibians have much anatomically in common with fish, etcetera. Fossils are proof, there aren't any dinosaurs around but I've never met someone who actually doubted their existence. Concrete biological proof exists indeed though -- be it vestigial appendages, isolated species variation, or genetic symmetry. I'm repeating myself but evolution is so well accepted because it has survived the barrage of intelligent criticism launched by some of the most doubting and discerning men -- scientists. I doubt anyone here has the tumultuous evidence to disprove such a staunch explanation of species variation...

Any science book should be a reference, but my favorites on the subject are Edward O. Wilson's work -- "The Future of Life" and "On Human Nature", there's also Ray Kurzweil's books on the trends of evolution and where they're heading. Not to mention the hundreds of other published works on evolution and biology.

[Skelton]

You seem to know much about this so what about viruses? I cannot see how they could have possibly evolved from single cell organisms. And it most likely wasn't just one huge fluke since we have seen new viruses not just mutations.

I choose religion because science will never answer the really interesting questions but I appreciate your calm demeanor.

And if I remember correctly DNA does not have to exist for life but RNA does.

[DeathToSociety]

I believe viruses are not considered living because they are unable to grow or reproduce without a host. I don't know much about viruses so you're probably better off finding out by yourself.

I personally believe in the answers that science has to offer even though some of it doesn't make sense, because with science, nobody knows the whole truth, we are constantly learning new things, whereas with religion, it claims to know the whole truth but there are still gaping holes in its answers.

[sacrednines]

Originally Posted by Skelton

You seem to know much about this so what about viruses? I cannot see how they could have possibly evolved from single cell organisms. And it most likely wasn't just one huge fluke since we have seen new viruses not just mutations.

My knowledge of viruses is somewhat limited too, but I think DeathtoSociety is correct.. It not my field of study, but now you've peaked my interest so I'll get back to you later.

[Core Entropy]

Originally Posted by DeathToSociety

We evolved directly from apes, yeah if you trace it back far enough you could say we evolved from fish, trace it back further and you could say we evolved from single cell organisms.

I find that whole thing bullshit. Prove to me that we came from Apes, prove it with science. Don't use the "Frozen Caveman" shit because it was proven that the scientists who found that placed plaster behind the jaw to jut it out.

I believe we can adapt to the environment but these extreme changes do not make sense. Even if the whole we came from apes theory was proven to be plausible one thing doesn't make sense. How did, in the beginning of time with single celled organisms, how did the single cell organisms all of a sudden group together and give all the control to one. They didnt have brains, or any living matter to that extent, how did we just BAM two celled organisms. It does not work people.

[Core Entropy]

I naturally call everything (even my own beliefs) bullshit please do not take offense by that.

Also Single celled organisms do not have any supportive stability to be categorized comparatively with schools of fish, which have brains, senses, a need to live, and instincts.
Also please give me some cold hard proof that the genetic composition of each cell can be grouped together and work together in such a perfect rhythm as to create not one, but billions of species. these organisms have no mind to give each other control and have no way of communicating, as of they also do not have any recognition of each other unless already directed and served its purpose for a specific purpose as in our white blood cells. If you can get me the proof then ill lean towards your justification in this matter.

and BTW: The entire scientific community in my eyes is a joke. I understand many of their concepts but the fact that they say something is true and people automatically spread their theories as facts puts them down in my eyes as a whole.