All Non-Africans Part Neanderthal, Genetics Confirm

Total bullshit, Walleyes. Think Coke bottles. Concrete bridges and dams. Stainless steel. Plastic. The Great Wall of China.

The Biblical flood is certainly a rewrite of the Epic. And that most probably described the infilling of the Black Sea.





Yes, and when did that happen? Glass coke bottles? Turned to sand in 1000 years. Plastic? UV radiation turns them into powder within 1000 years. Great wall of China will probably not last as long as the Pyramids (which are stone) but both will outlast the modern materials that our society is based on. Stainless steel still rusts or didn't you know that?

Concrete bridges and dams will fracture, collapse, and disappear within 1,000 years. Our cement is not nearly as good as the Romans cement is.
This is the Livingston House in Detroit, one of the great homes of the era. How much more time do you think it has?

Roman concrete better than ours? You had best show some evidence for that, Walleyes. Coke bottles will not devitrify in only 1000 years, and there are thousands of tons of plastic buried in land fills. And you failed utterly to address stainless steel artifacts.





Stainless steel rusts or didn't you catch that part? Glass in a landfill will devitrify rather quickly, probably faster then if it was on the surface. Look at a bottle that's been in the dirt for a while. See that whitish coloring on the surface? That's the glass beginning to break down. After enough time has passed it will fall apart and you will be left with a white powder as the glass devolves back into its constituents.

Here's a little article on Roman concrete and yes it was significantly better then the concrete we use today. They were able to build mile long arched aqueducts without having to use expansion joints. Try doing that with modern cement, ain't gonna happen.
Mayan cement was much better then ours as well.

See you need to read some history my friend. It's amazing what you can learn when you crack a book.





"Two thousand years ago the Roman Empire built concrete structures that still look as though the concrete was just poured. Modern concrete structures not even a century old are crumbling and many of them are already in ruins. What is the difference between the concrete the Romans used compared with modern Portland cement based concrete?

The Roman engineers did not have any thing resembling modern Portland cement that was invented by an English mason in 1824. It was literally something he cooked up on his wife's kitchen stove. It was made from a mixture of clay and limestone that was ground into a fine powder. The resulting cement was in the form of a clinker that had to be ground so fine that it would pass through a mesh that water would not.

Roman cement was made from two simple ingredients that were available in abundance: limestone and volcanic ash. There are plenty of volcanoes in Italy especially around Naples and Rome to supply the ash. Limestone was plentiful in the Dolomites a mountain range making up the backbone of Italy.

The most important ingredient was a good quality of white limestone that the Romans subjected to a heating process that drove of carbon dioxide leaving behind calcium oxide. This is familiar as Quick Lime. When it is added to water the heat generated by a chemical reaction is enough to bring the water to the boiling point. It also leaves behind a product called hydrated lime that was stored in amphora until use. This material mixed with clean river sand produces mortar used to set stones and brick."

Roman Concrete Compared to Modern Concrete - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com
 
And the shoddy constructed one during Roman times have disappeared.

Sorry, but you will have to show me the chemistry of how Roman concrete exceeds what we use for major projects.




The best construction the Romans used looks like they were poured yesterday. The Pantheon is 2038 years old and has withstood numerous earthquakes without damage. There are harbor works in Naples that likewise look like modern construction they are in such good shape.

Here are some pictures of it. Show us a picture of any cement building you wish that is more than 75 years old.
 

Attachments

  • $800px-Pantheon_rome_2005may.jpg
    $800px-Pantheon_rome_2005may.jpg
    115.3 KB · Views: 61
  • $PantheonHDR.jpg
    $PantheonHDR.jpg
    159.9 KB · Views: 68
  • $rome-pantheon-ceiling.jpg
    $rome-pantheon-ceiling.jpg
    146.8 KB · Views: 68
There was a times when some thought blacks were "less" than human. Hilarious.
you are absolutely correct humans are descended from neanderthal it's a proven fact.and blacks are descended from homo erectus this also a proven fact.EVER SEEN A GRAPHIC OF HOMO ERECTUS????:muahaha::dance::dance::muahaha: YOU JUST STEPPED KNEE DEEP INTO SOME SHIT YOU DON"T WANT TO STEP INTO HA HA HA!!!!
 
Last edited:
The lack of artifacts of said civilizations argues they did not exist.

Lack of artifacts does not prove there were none. It just proves there are none to be found.

;)

Citizen, have a look at the artifacts left by the Roman, Greek, Egyptian, and Meso-American civilizations. Consider that we find artifacts left by our ancestors from two million years ago. But no one has presented us with artifacts and evidence of an advanced civilization dating past ten thousand years ago.

No longer true.

At first glance, the fox on the surface of the limestone pillar appears to be a trick of the bright sunlight. But as I move closer to the large, T-shaped megalith, I find it is carved with an improbable menagerie. A bull and a crane join the fox in an animal parade etched across the surface of the pillar, one of dozens erected by early Neolithic people at Göbekli Tepe in southeastern Turkey. The press here is fond of calling the site "the Turkish Stonehenge," but the comparison hardly does justice to this 25-acre arrangement of at least seven stone circles. The first structures at Göbekli Tepe were built as early as 10,000 B.C., predating their famous British counterpart by about 7,000 years.

source

This discovery has really turned pretty much every theory we had about the development of civilization on its head, folks.

These temples appear to be the vestages of some kind of highly complex HUNTER GATHERER society that predates every historical agricultural society we have as yet discovered.
 
Multiply your grandparents by two and that by two and do that several times and soon we are all related somewhere or another.

I'm not sure what to make of this work by Lindsay, but like so many things it matters not to me, I am a weird mix and our children even more complicated but so what, it is what you do in life and how you live that matters all the rest is BS. But then I think suppose instead I looked more like dad and our name was more ethnic specific, would it have mattered then? Yes, I think it would have. I am old enough to have seen a more open hatred of the other, PC has changed that in a subtle but not good manner for some. Sad world that we only exist in a brief moment - we should all be glad to just see the sky.

"The figures for Black admixture are possibly discouraging to White nationalists, but considering that 90% of them are Nordicists anyway, maybe not..." see chart down page. A Little Black In All of Us | Robert Lindsay


And this too: "Combine the genetic influences on personality with the political tendencies of different personality types, and the idea that genetics shapes political tendencies seems very plausible indeed. All of the big five personality traits are highly heritable (Journal of Research in Personality, vol 32, p 431), with several studies suggesting that around half of the variation in openness scores is a result of genetic differences." ingentaconnect Heritabilities of Common and Measure-Specific Components of the B...
 
Last edited:
You might, for once, want to think this through.

What makes you think I am the one that has not thought this through?

There started out a finite pool of humans with all the "human" genes in the world. A small group of them broke off from the main group and headed north. Just the fact that they are a small group from a much larger group makes them less genetically diverse. They mated with Neanderthals. Only about 2% of their genes actually entered the human gene pool. Even with that small addition, the main group, from where Africans are descended, were much, much more diverse genetically.

What makes you believe that?

That "small group" that went north became the population of most of the world. They are now so genetically diverse that there are multiple genetic strains, and the more diverse the strains that go into a person, the better their health and intelligence, they also tend to be better looking, in my opinion.



You really have no idea how genetics work, do you.

The further back we go the more ancestors any organism that reproduces through sex will have. It does not take very long before a single organism has more ancestors than ever actually lived. That means that every species is inter related, and that applies to humans. Every one of us is related to everyone else.

With Neanderthals and humans diverging for 400,000 years, you can bet their situation was very similar to lions and tigers.

Actually, the theory is that we merged with neanderthals about 400,000 years ago. We must have been fairly closely related if we were mutually fertile, which means that the divergence would not have been that much further in the past. We were not separate species, anymore than lions and tigers are.

I really am shocked how little right wingers know about anything. Genetics and evolution is taught in high school, at least in the high school I went to. I know it's not allowed in many southern high schools. Because in those schools, "God did it".

You obviously never paid any attention to what they taught in high school, since you tried to argue with me that Darwin did not understand that all life on Earth evolved from simple lifeforms. Yet you continue to try to argue with this ignorant right winger about science, and continually get your idiocy shoved down your throat.

Species that evolved independently from each other don't "merge".

And you have the nerve to question my education. Hilarious.
 
If your heritage is non-African, you are part Neanderthal, according to a new study in the July issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution. Discovery News has been reporting on human/Neanderthal interbreeding for some time now, so this latest research confirms earlier findings.

All Non-Africans Part Neanderthal, Genetics Confirm : Discovery News

6a00d8341bf67c53ef014e89ef7234970d-pi


"We can now say that, in all probability, there was gene flow from Neanderthals to modern humans," said the paper's first author, Richard E. (Ed) Green of the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Complete Neanderthal genome yields insights into human evolution and evidence of interbreeding

Neandertals | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine

90%

I'm sure this has been listed.

Didn't we all come from Africa? [Or was it 98%]

If I recall, research from last year says our genes thin out the further we get from Africa.

so this all makes less and less sense.

I
 
You might, for once, want to think this through.

What makes you think I am the one that has not thought this through?



What makes you believe that?

That "small group" that went north became the population of most of the world. They are now so genetically diverse that there are multiple genetic strains, and the more diverse the strains that go into a person, the better their health and intelligence, they also tend to be better looking, in my opinion.



You really have no idea how genetics work, do you.

The further back we go the more ancestors any organism that reproduces through sex will have. It does not take very long before a single organism has more ancestors than ever actually lived. That means that every species is inter related, and that applies to humans. Every one of us is related to everyone else.



Actually, the theory is that we merged with neanderthals about 400,000 years ago. We must have been fairly closely related if we were mutually fertile, which means that the divergence would not have been that much further in the past. We were not separate species, anymore than lions and tigers are.

I really am shocked how little right wingers know about anything. Genetics and evolution is taught in high school, at least in the high school I went to. I know it's not allowed in many southern high schools. Because in those schools, "God did it".

You obviously never paid any attention to what they taught in high school, since you tried to argue with me that Darwin did not understand that all life on Earth evolved from simple lifeforms. Yet you continue to try to argue with this ignorant right winger about science, and continually get your idiocy shoved down your throat.

Species that evolved independently from each other don't "merge".

And you have the nerve to question my education. Hilarious.

I do not question your education, I mock its effectiveness.

What do you think interbreeding is? Why does the article you linked to say that neanderthals were absorbed into the homo sapiens bloodline if we did not merge?
 
What makes you think I am the one that has not thought this through?



What makes you believe that?

That "small group" that went north became the population of most of the world. They are now so genetically diverse that there are multiple genetic strains, and the more diverse the strains that go into a person, the better their health and intelligence, they also tend to be better looking, in my opinion.



You really have no idea how genetics work, do you.

The further back we go the more ancestors any organism that reproduces through sex will have. It does not take very long before a single organism has more ancestors than ever actually lived. That means that every species is inter related, and that applies to humans. Every one of us is related to everyone else.



Actually, the theory is that we merged with neanderthals about 400,000 years ago. We must have been fairly closely related if we were mutually fertile, which means that the divergence would not have been that much further in the past. We were not separate species, anymore than lions and tigers are.



You obviously never paid any attention to what they taught in high school, since you tried to argue with me that Darwin did not understand that all life on Earth evolved from simple lifeforms. Yet you continue to try to argue with this ignorant right winger about science, and continually get your idiocy shoved down your throat.

Species that evolved independently from each other don't "merge".

And you have the nerve to question my education. Hilarious.

I do not question your education, I mock its effectiveness.

What do you think interbreeding is? Why does the article you linked to say that neanderthals were absorbed into the homo sapiens bloodline if we did not merge?

This describes rdean, as well as many who post here pretty well.

Pseudointellectual

`Pseudointellectual` is a pejorative term used to describe someone who engages in false intellectualism or is intellectually dishonest. The term is often, though not always, used to describe one who regularly critiques the work of professionals, while lacking the requisite background knowledge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudointel
 
What makes you think I am the one that has not thought this through?



What makes you believe that?

That "small group" that went north became the population of most of the world. They are now so genetically diverse that there are multiple genetic strains, and the more diverse the strains that go into a person, the better their health and intelligence, they also tend to be better looking, in my opinion.



You really have no idea how genetics work, do you.

The further back we go the more ancestors any organism that reproduces through sex will have. It does not take very long before a single organism has more ancestors than ever actually lived. That means that every species is inter related, and that applies to humans. Every one of us is related to everyone else.



Actually, the theory is that we merged with neanderthals about 400,000 years ago. We must have been fairly closely related if we were mutually fertile, which means that the divergence would not have been that much further in the past. We were not separate species, anymore than lions and tigers are.



You obviously never paid any attention to what they taught in high school, since you tried to argue with me that Darwin did not understand that all life on Earth evolved from simple lifeforms. Yet you continue to try to argue with this ignorant right winger about science, and continually get your idiocy shoved down your throat.

Species that evolved independently from each other don't "merge".

And you have the nerve to question my education. Hilarious.

I do not question your education, I mock its effectiveness.

What do you think interbreeding is? Why does the article you linked to say that neanderthals were absorbed into the homo sapiens bloodline if we did not merge?

400,000 to 800,000 years ago, Neanderthals and humans diverged. They remained independent populations with zero contact up to around 30,000 years ago when humans once again started migrating from Africa.

It's explained in the very first article I posted.

I'm not going to make fun of your reading ability or lack of knowledge of anything worthwhile because it would be mean. It would be like making fun of Stan Laural.

blog7.jpg
 
Species that evolved independently from each other don't "merge".

And you have the nerve to question my education. Hilarious.

I do not question your education, I mock its effectiveness.

What do you think interbreeding is? Why does the article you linked to say that neanderthals were absorbed into the homo sapiens bloodline if we did not merge?

This describes rdean, as well as many who post here pretty well.

Pseudointellectual

`Pseudointellectual` is a pejorative term used to describe someone who engages in false intellectualism or is intellectually dishonest. The term is often, though not always, used to describe one who regularly critiques the work of professionals, while lacking the requisite background knowledge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudointel

It's one thing for species, like lions and tigers, or donkey, zebras and horses, to "merge when it hasn't been that long since they diverged.

It's something else entirely for an ostrich and a kangaroo to "merge". That's about as likely as you having a GED.
 
You might, for once, want to think this through.

What makes you think I am the one that has not thought this through?

There started out a finite pool of humans with all the "human" genes in the world. A small group of them broke off from the main group and headed north. Just the fact that they are a small group from a much larger group makes them less genetically diverse. They mated with Neanderthals. Only about 2% of their genes actually entered the human gene pool. Even with that small addition, the main group, from where Africans are descended, were much, much more diverse genetically.

What makes you believe that?

That "small group" that went north became the population of most of the world. They are now so genetically diverse that there are multiple genetic strains, and the more diverse the strains that go into a person, the better their health and intelligence, they also tend to be better looking, in my opinion. You don't know that. You just made it up. Is a chicken better looking than a dinosaur?



You really have no idea how genetics work, do you.

The further back we go the more ancestors any organism that reproduces through sex will have. It does not take very long before a single organism has more ancestors than ever actually lived. That means that every species is inter related, and that applies to humans. Every one of us is related to everyone else.

With Neanderthals and humans diverging for 400,000 years, you can bet their situation was very similar to lions and tigers.

Actually, the theory is that we merged with neanderthals about 400,000 years ago. We must have been fairly closely related if we were mutually fertile, which means that the divergence would not have been that much further in the past. We were not separate species, anymore than lions and tigers are.

I really am shocked how little right wingers know about anything. Genetics and evolution is taught in high school, at least in the high school I went to. I know it's not allowed in many southern high schools. Because in those schools, "God did it".

You obviously never paid any attention to what they taught in high school, since you tried to argue with me that Darwin did not understand that all life on Earth evolved from simple lifeforms. Yet you continue to try to argue with this ignorant right winger about science, and continually get your idiocy shoved down your throat.

Prove that he did. Darwin's entire theory was divergent evolution. Not that we evolved from single celled animals.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do not question your education, I mock its effectiveness.

What do you think interbreeding is? Why does the article you linked to say that neanderthals were absorbed into the homo sapiens bloodline if we did not merge?

This describes rdean, as well as many who post here pretty well.

Pseudointellectual

`Pseudointellectual` is a pejorative term used to describe someone who engages in false intellectualism or is intellectually dishonest. The term is often, though not always, used to describe one who regularly critiques the work of professionals, while lacking the requisite background knowledge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudointel

It's one thing for species, like lions and tigers, or donkey, zebras and horses, to "merge when it hasn't been that long since they diverged.

It's something else entirely for an ostrich and a kangaroo to "merge". That's about as likely as you having a GED.

Lions and tigers have never merged in the wild. Zebras and horses have never merged in the wild. Horses and donkeys have never merged in the wild. Its pointless to use them as an example of anything. Various species of the painted turtle have as well as some frogs lizards and some snakes. It is still vary rare except among the painted turtles. I cant help it if the only knowledge you have is what is available to you by Google. I do understand that your frustration comes from getting your little ego smashed when it is pointed out that you are just a tiny little lib hack. You started this thread as a political statement, and you ended up looking stupid so now you have to take it personally. I pity you, you sad little thing.
 
Species that evolved independently from each other don't "merge".

And you have the nerve to question my education. Hilarious.

I do not question your education, I mock its effectiveness.

What do you think interbreeding is? Why does the article you linked to say that neanderthals were absorbed into the homo sapiens bloodline if we did not merge?

400,000 to 800,000 years ago, Neanderthals and humans diverged. They remained independent populations with zero contact up to around 30,000 years ago when humans once again started migrating from Africa.

It's explained in the very first article I posted.

I'm not going to make fun of your reading ability or lack of knowledge of anything worthwhile because it would be mean. It would be like making fun of Stan Laural.

That is not what happened. Let me explain this, again.

From your link:

The ancestors of Neanderthals left Africa about 400,000 to 800,000 years ago. They evolved over the millennia mostly in what are now France, Spain, Germany and Russia. They went extinct, or were simply absorbed into the modern human population, about 30,000 years ago.
You can read that paragraph 10,000 times and not come up with your wild, and unsubstantiated, claim that Neanderthals and humans did not interbreed until 30,000 years ago.

Here is what the article you posted actually says.

"This confirms recent findings suggesting that the two populations interbred," Labuda was quoted as saying in a press release. His team believes most, if not all, of the interbreeding took place in the Middle East, while modern humans were migrating out of Africa and spreading to other regions.
For the reading comprehension challenged, that means that the interbreeding occurred over a long period of time that encompassed the entirety of human migration, unless you think that occurred in less than 30,000 years. If you do, you are the one here who believes in magical creation.

That means that, once again, a right wing idiot who does not believe in education or evolution has once again proven that he understands both better than the self proclaimed expert.

Is this a picture of yourself you posted?

blog7.jpg
 
Last edited:
Now rdean doesn't want to "celebrate diversity" anymore
 
You might, for once, want to think this through.

What makes you think I am the one that has not thought this through?



What makes you believe that?

That "small group" that went north became the population of most of the world. They are now so genetically diverse that there are multiple genetic strains, and the more diverse the strains that go into a person, the better their health and intelligence, they also tend to be better looking, in my opinion. You don't know that. You just made it up. Is a chicken better looking than a dinosaur?



You really have no idea how genetics work, do you.

The further back we go the more ancestors any organism that reproduces through sex will have. It does not take very long before a single organism has more ancestors than ever actually lived. That means that every species is inter related, and that applies to humans. Every one of us is related to everyone else.



Actually, the theory is that we merged with neanderthals about 400,000 years ago. We must have been fairly closely related if we were mutually fertile, which means that the divergence would not have been that much further in the past. We were not separate species, anymore than lions and tigers are.

I really am shocked how little right wingers know about anything. Genetics and evolution is taught in high school, at least in the high school I went to. I know it's not allowed in many southern high schools. Because in those schools, "God did it".

You obviously never paid any attention to what they taught in high school, since you tried to argue with me that Darwin did not understand that all life on Earth evolved from simple lifeforms. Yet you continue to try to argue with this ignorant right winger about science, and continually get your idiocy shoved down your throat.

Prove that he did. Darwin's entire theory was divergent evolution. Not that we evolved from single celled animals.

Do you really want to embarrass yourself again?

In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[15] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[16] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory.

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look at that, he understood more than you thought.

An Origin of the Species was specifically written to explain how species adapted to fill specific geographical niches, so it obviously discussed divergent evolution. That does not make it all of his theory.

As usual, you know less about this than the average 5th grader in Arkansas or Tennessee, yet you feel so superior to them and their parents.
 
What makes you think I am the one that has not thought this through?



What makes you believe that?

That "small group" that went north became the population of most of the world. They are now so genetically diverse that there are multiple genetic strains, and the more diverse the strains that go into a person, the better their health and intelligence, they also tend to be better looking, in my opinion. You don't know that. You just made it up. Is a chicken better looking than a dinosaur?



You really have no idea how genetics work, do you.

The further back we go the more ancestors any organism that reproduces through sex will have. It does not take very long before a single organism has more ancestors than ever actually lived. That means that every species is inter related, and that applies to humans. Every one of us is related to everyone else.



Actually, the theory is that we merged with neanderthals about 400,000 years ago. We must have been fairly closely related if we were mutually fertile, which means that the divergence would not have been that much further in the past. We were not separate species, anymore than lions and tigers are.



You obviously never paid any attention to what they taught in high school, since you tried to argue with me that Darwin did not understand that all life on Earth evolved from simple lifeforms. Yet you continue to try to argue with this ignorant right winger about science, and continually get your idiocy shoved down your throat.

Prove that he did. Darwin's entire theory was divergent evolution. Not that we evolved from single celled animals.

Do you really want to embarrass yourself again?

In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[15] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[16] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory.

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look at that, he understood more than you thought.

An Origin of the Species was specifically written to explain how species adapted to fill specific geographical niches, so it obviously discussed divergent evolution. That does not make it all of his theory.

As usual, you know less about this than the average 5th grader in Arkansas or Tennessee, yet you feel so superior to them and their parents.

From your link:

In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[15] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[16] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory.

That is not a "theory", that is a "musing". Get it? "Suggesting" is not a theory. Darwin had "proof" of evolution which is why the "Theory of Evolution" really is a scientific theory.

Also, he was referring to Aristotle's idea of Spontaneous generation which had been around since about 300 BC.

It's something like, "Spontaneously, creatures can be created by nature from surrounding material". I don't know the exact words but that's close. Aristotle was talking about fully formed creatures, not single celled animals, springing from river mud.
 
Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com


A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory.

Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed.

“It’s like molecular choreography, where the molecules choreograph their own behavior,” said organic chemist John Sutherland of the University of Manchester, co-author of a study in Nature Wednesday.
<more>
 
Last edited:
Prove that he did. Darwin's entire theory was divergent evolution. Not that we evolved from single celled animals.

Do you really want to embarrass yourself again?

In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[15] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[16] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory.
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look at that, he understood more than you thought.

An Origin of the Species was specifically written to explain how species adapted to fill specific geographical niches, so it obviously discussed divergent evolution. That does not make it all of his theory.

As usual, you know less about this than the average 5th grader in Arkansas or Tennessee, yet you feel so superior to them and their parents.

From your link:

In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[15] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[16] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory.

That is not a "theory", that is a "musing". Get it? "Suggesting" is not a theory. Darwin had "proof" of evolution which is why the "Theory of Evolution" really is a scientific theory.

Also, he was referring to Aristotle's idea of Spontaneous generation which had been around since about 300 BC.

It's something like, "Spontaneously, creatures can be created by nature from surrounding material". I don't know the exact words but that's close. Aristotle was talking about fully formed creatures, not single celled animals, springing from river mud.

Do you understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution? Darwin did, and he was musing on why there is no evidence of chemicals forming complex organic chains and becoming living organisms in nature. His musing was that life consumed those chemicals, leaving no evidence of abiogenesis. He nonetheless believed that life began in a primordial soup, and that all life on Earth is descending from that first life form.

Darwin correctly separated abiogenesis and evolution because he could support one with evidence, and merely thought the other was reasonable. Many scientists have been working to prove that Darwin was correct about abiogenesis also, and all have, so far, failed.

He did, however, lay the basics for the evolution from simple to complex.

Tell me something, why is it that a man who believes in God is defending evolution and Darwin to an atheist? Are you so completely unable to admit that you are wrong that you are willing to argue that God exists simply to prove me wrong?
 

Forum List

Back
Top